That certainly sound reasonable to me. How do you see discovery of that working? Thanks, Jake Oshins -----Original Message----- From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:paolo.bonzini@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paolo Bonzini Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:18 AM To: Nakajima, Jun; KY Srinivasan Cc: Mathew John; Theodore Ts'o; John Starks; kvm list; Gleb Natapov; Niels Ferguson; Andy Lutomirski; David Hepkin; H. Peter Anvin; Jake Oshins; Linux Virtualization Subject: Re: Standardizing an MSR or other hypercall to get an RNG seed? Il 18/09/2014 19:13, Nakajima, Jun ha scritto: > In terms of the address for the MSR, I suggest that you choose one > from the range between 40000000H - 400000FFH. The SDM (35.1 > ARCHITECTURAL MSRS) says "All existing and > future processors will not implement any features using any MSR in > this range." Hyper-V already defines many synthetic MSRs in this > range, and I think it would be reasonable for you to pick one for this > to avoid a conflict? KVM is not using any MSR in that range. However, I think it would be better to have the MSR (and perhaps CPUID) outside the hypervisor-reserved ranges, so that it becomes architecturally defined. In some sense it is similar to the HYPERVISOR CPUID feature. Paolo _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
