On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 04:50:43PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 04/23/2013 04:41 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > Btw, in thinking about this more, I'm kinda sceptical we want to use the > > CPUID layout for this new KVM_GET_EMULATED_* ioctl. And the reason why > > I'm sceptical is that not every instruction is behind a CPUID capability > > bit and if we want to tell userspace that we do emulate any insn, even > > one for which there's no CPUID bit, we're going to have to either > > simulate a kvm-specific CPUID leaf or, maybe even better, come up with > > our own format for emulated capabilities. Maybe a bit vector with set > > bits for the respective capability, or something more nifty. > > > > In any case, it doesn't really need to be CPUID-like, IMHO. > > > > Using CPUID has the major advantage that it is well-defined. > This. And I really hope vendors will not add instructions without corespondent CPUID bits nowadays. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
