On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 00:32, Alexey Suslikov wrote:
> Sometimes we warn users, sometimes not (but we aware of the problem).
>
> What is the criteria?
Is it a device we claim to support? (Or are interested in supporting?)
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 21:28, Alexey Suslikov wrote:
>> >>
>> >> While I see practical use, someone don't. I call this disagreement. There
>> >> is
>> >> no problem for me if some
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 21:28, Alexey Suslikov wrote:
> >>
> >> While I see practical use, someone don't. I call this disagreement. There
> >> is
> >> no problem for me if somebody disagree with a plan I have. It's normal.
> >>
> >> Btw,
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 21:28, Alexey Suslikov wrote:
>>
>> While I see practical use, someone don't. I call this disagreement. There is
>> no problem for me if somebody disagree with a plan I have. It's normal.
>>
>> Btw, Intel's doc I have f
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 21:28, Alexey Suslikov wrote:
>
> While I see practical use, someone don't. I call this disagreement. There is
> no problem for me if somebody disagree with a plan I have. It's normal.
>
> Btw, Intel's doc I have found at
> http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> I'm not trying to convince, but avoid useless work/talk in the future:
>
> Yes you are. You have an agenda.
>
> You want to make us work around a bug, rather than talk to the
> originators of the problem.
While I see practical use, someone
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Theo de Raadt
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Mike Larkin wrote:
> >> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 05:11:35PM +, Alexey E. Suslikov wrote:
> >> >> Theo de Raadt cvs.openbsd.org> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > If these VM's are real VM's the should s
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Mike Larkin wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 05:11:35PM +, Alexey E. Suslikov wrote:
>> >> Theo de Raadt cvs.openbsd.org> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > If these VM's are real VM's the should start emulating
On Mon, 20 May 2013, Alexey Suslikov wrote:
> Seen in dmesg, HV flag will indicate operating system is run under
> hypervisor and weird things are possible while running kernel code which
> depends on CPU features.
>
> After all, it is kinda documented by AMD on page 570 of
> http://support.amd.
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Mike Larkin wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 05:11:35PM +, Alexey E. Suslikov wrote:
> >> Theo de Raadt cvs.openbsd.org> writes:
> >>
> >> > If these VM's are real VM's the should start emulating the machines
> >> > they claim to be emulating correctly, or
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Mike Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 05:11:35PM +, Alexey E. Suslikov wrote:
>> Theo de Raadt cvs.openbsd.org> writes:
>>
>> > If these VM's are real VM's the should start emulating the machines
>> > they claim to be emulating correctly, or they should
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 05:11:35PM +, Alexey E. Suslikov wrote:
> Theo de Raadt cvs.openbsd.org> writes:
>
> > If these VM's are real VM's the should start emulating the machines
> > they claim to be emulating correctly, or they should start advertising
> > that they are something "different"
Theo de Raadt cvs.openbsd.org> writes:
> If these VM's are real VM's the should start emulating the machines
> they claim to be emulating correctly, or they should start advertising
> that they are something "different", so that we can isolate the bullshit
> factor.
Ok. I see.
Could we trim tha
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Alexey E. Suslikov
wrote:
> Mike Larkin azathoth.net> writes:
>
>> You're kidding, right?
>
> Could you guys tell what exactly wrong with FreeBSD/NetBSD approach?
>
Adding some silly workarounds to the kernel for a bug that is a *KVM bug*.
> > You're kidding, right?
>
> Could you guys tell what exactly wrong with FreeBSD/NetBSD approach?
So basically, we're told that these VM's are emulating real machines.
Except when we try to manage the hardware -- in the specific way that
the specific hardware must be handled -- the VM fails to
Mike Larkin azathoth.net> writes:
> You're kidding, right?
Could you guys tell what exactly wrong with FreeBSD/NetBSD approach?
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 02:33:07PM +, Alexey E. Suslikov wrote:
> Jonathan Gray jsg.id.au> writes:
>
> > Filling the kernel full of if not really running on hardware
> > do something else paths is asking for trouble. If a hypervisor
> > claims to be a specific model of a processor it should
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 09:16:21AM +0300, Roman Kravchuk wrote:
> I'm have problem with run OpenBSD current amd64 as guest in KVM hypervisor
> on Ubuntu server with AMD CPU.
..
> cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor)
> cpu0: AMD Phenom(tm) 9550 Quad-Core Processor, 3600.53 MHz
> cpu0:
> FPU,VME
Jonathan Gray jsg.id.au> writes:
> Filling the kernel full of if not really running on hardware
> do something else paths is asking for trouble. If a hypervisor
> claims to be a specific model of a processor it should not be
> surprised when it gets msrs that processor can handle.
>
>
FreeBSD
Jonathan Gray jsg.id.au> writes:
> > So what is the point for guest to run erratas if hypervisor
> > may already done that upwards?
>
> Filling the kernel full of if not really running on hardware
> do something else paths is asking for trouble. If a hypervisor
> claims to be a specific model o
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 01:50:39PM +, Alexey E. Suslikov wrote:
> Jonathan Gray jsg.id.au> writes:
>
> > That is quite a large hammer. It would be preferable to
> > find out which msr it objects to and guard it with a specific cpuid
> > check, and/or fix the hypervisor.
>
> >From NetBSD PR/
Jonathan Gray jsg.id.au> writes:
> That is quite a large hammer. It would be preferable to
> find out which msr it objects to and guard it with a specific cpuid
> check, and/or fix the hypervisor.
>From NetBSD PR/47677 (http://gnats.netbsd.org/47677)
"I think x86_errata should be avoided if Ne
Hi,
Using this patch, I still receive a `pckbc: command timeout' when starting
X. And synaptics initialization fails.
Cédric
Monday 20 May 2013, 13:53:34 (+0600), Alexandr Shadchin:
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 03:01:03PM +0200, NeZetiC wrote:
> > >Synopsis: Elantech touchpad v2 detected but s
That is quite a large hammer. It would be preferable to
find out which msr it objects to and guard it with a specific cpuid
check, and/or fix the hypervisor.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:34:43AM +0300, Roman Kravchuk wrote:
> patch_amd64errata.diff
>
> Index: amd64/amd64/amd64errata.c
> ==
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 03:01:03PM +0200, NeZetiC wrote:
> >Synopsis: Elantech touchpad v2 detected but synaptics fails
> >Category: kernel
> >Environment:
> System : OpenBSD 5.3
> Details : OpenBSD 5.3 (EEEPC) #5: Tue May 14 11:51:36 CEST 2013
>
$ cat patch_amd64errata.diff
Index: amd64/amd64/amd64errata.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/amd64/amd64/amd64errata.c,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.3 amd64errata.c
--- amd64/amd64/amd64errata.c27 Mar 2012 05:59:
patch_amd64errata.diff
Index: amd64/amd64/amd64errata.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/amd64/amd64/amd64errata.c,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.3 amd64errata.c
--- amd64/amd64/amd64errata.c27 Mar 2012 05:59:46 -00
27 matches
Mail list logo
