[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2db45546-d504-d006-ce3c-65f832b5a70a@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 14:24:04 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm/x86: reserve bit
KVM_HINTS_PHYS_ADDRESS_SIZE_DATA_VALID
On 9/21/22 18:32, Jim Mattson wrote:
>> The issue is that this "hint" effectively breaks other VMMs that already provide
>> an accurate guest.MAXPHYADDR.
>
> Any VMM that doesn't provide an accurate guest.MAXPHYADDR is broken.
> Why do we need a "hint" that the virtual processor works?
I agree. Since old (and current) versions of QEMU wouldn't get the bit
anyway, just fix the next one. I'll follow up on the QEMU mailing list.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists