[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190325183909.GQ12016@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 19:39:09 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Yazen Ghannam <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm/x86: Move MSR_K7_HWCR to svm.c
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:21:33AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Won't this prevent emulating an AMD guest on Intel hardware, e.g. due to
> injecting #GPs during boot?
I guess, but...
> Keeping support in kvm_{get,set}_msr_common
> doesn't preclude svm_{get,set}_msr() from having SVM-specific handling for
> the MSR.
... is kvm_{get,set}_msr_common() supposed to cover for all those
overlapping MSRs between AMD and Intel? svm_{get,set}_msr() have a lot
more AMD-specific MSRs just like vmx_{get,set}_msr() respectively for
Intel.
Which would mean that if you really want to support those cross-vendor
emulations, you don't need the svm* and vmx* MSR accessors... or am I
missing something?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists