[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1519047329.7876.64.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:35:29 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM/VMX: Emulate MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES
On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 14:10 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Hardware seems like a reasonable place to get the default value (cf.
> > the VMX capability MSRs).
>
> There are some differences:
>
> - a zero value for ARCH_CAPABILITIES should be safe, while a zero value
> for VMX capabilities doesn't really make sense. On the contrary, a
> nonzero value for ARCH_CAPABILITIES is not safe across live migration.
Any VMM which is going to support live migration surely needs to pay at
least a small amount of attention to the features it exposes? Exposing
the ARCH_CAPABILITIES CPUID bit without actually looking at the
contents of the associated MSR which that bit advertises would be... a
little strange, would it not?
I don't see why we care so much about the *default* value, in that
context.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists