[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55FADD25.6040909@citrix.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:32:53 +0100
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
xen-devel <Xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3] x86/paravirt: Fix baremetal paravirt
MSR ops
On 17/09/15 16:27, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 01:39:26PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> That's not a big deal, that's what *_safe is for. The problem is that
>> there are definitely some cases where the *_safe version is not being used.
> I mean to do feature checks which assure you that those MSRs are
> there so you don't need the safe variants. And that is not always
> easy/possible.
>
There are plenty of non-architectural MSRs in use which don't have
feature bits.
Xen used to have problems booting when using the masking MSRs when
booting virtualised. Nowadays it uses a cpu vendor check and _safe()
probe to detect support.
~Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists