Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:14:07PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> virtual time base register is a per vm register and need to saved
>> and restored on vm exit and entry. Writing to VTB is not allowed
>> in the privileged mode.
> ...
>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64
>> +#define mfvtb() ({unsigned long rval; \
>> + asm volatile("mfspr %0, %1" : \
>> + "=r" (rval) : "i" (SPRN_VTB)); rval;})
>
> The mfspr will be a no-op on anything before POWER8, meaning the
> result will be whatever value was in the destination GPR before the
> mfspr. I suppose that may not matter if the result is only ever used
> when we're running on a POWER8 host, but I would feel more comfortable
> if we had explicit feature tests to make sure of that, rather than
> possibly doing computations with unpredictable values.
>
> With your patch, a guest on a POWER7 or a PPC970 could do a read from
> VTB and get garbage -- first, there is nothing to stop userspace from
> requesting POWER8 emulation on an older machine, and secondly, even if
> the virtual machine is a PPC970 (say) you don't implement
> unimplemented SPR semantics for VTB (no-op if PR=0, illegal
> instruction interrupt if PR=1).
Ok that means we need to do something like ?
struct cpu_spec *s = find_cpuspec(vcpu->arch.pvr);
if (s->cpu_features & CPU_FTR_ARCH_207S) {
}
>
> On the whole I think it is reasonable to reject an attempt to set the
> virtual PVR to a POWER8 PVR value if we are not running on a POWER8
> host, because emulating all the new POWER8 features in software
> (particularly transactional memory) would not be feasible. Alex may
> disagree. :)
That would make it much simpler.
-aneesh
--
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
