On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:11:54AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 09/07/20 23:50, Peter Xu wrote:
> >> Sean: Objection your honor.
> >> Paolo: Overruled, you're wrong.
> >> Sean: Phooey.
> >>
> >> My point is that even though I still object to this series, Paolo has final
> >> say.
> >
> > I coul
On 09/07/20 23:50, Peter Xu wrote:
>> Sean: Objection your honor.
>> Paolo: Overruled, you're wrong.
>> Sean: Phooey.
>>
>> My point is that even though I still object to this series, Paolo has final
>> say.
>
> I could be wrong, but I feel like Paolo was really respecting your input, as
> always.
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 02:26:52PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:09:19PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > Again, using host_initiated or not should be a different issue? Frankly
> > speaking, I don't know whether it's an issue or not, but it's different from
> > what thi
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:09:19PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> Again, using host_initiated or not should be a different issue? Frankly
> speaking, I don't know whether it's an issue or not, but it's different from
> what this series wants to do, because it'll be the same before/after this
> series. A
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:24:40PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 02:22:20PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 08:47:26AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 04:24:34PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > On 26/06/20 20:18, S
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 02:22:20PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 08:47:26AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 04:24:34PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On 26/06/20 20:18, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > >> Btw, would it be more staightforward to ch
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 08:24:03PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 09/07/20 20:22, Peter Xu wrote:
> >>> So I think Peter's patch is fine, but (possibly on top as a third patch)
> >>> __must_check should be added to MSR getters and setters. Also one
> >>> possibility is to return -EINVAL for inva
On 09/07/20 20:22, Peter Xu wrote:
>>> So I think Peter's patch is fine, but (possibly on top as a third patch)
>>> __must_check should be added to MSR getters and setters. Also one
>>> possibility is to return -EINVAL for invalid MSRs.
> Yeah I can add another patch for that. Also if to repost,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 08:47:26AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 04:24:34PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 26/06/20 20:18, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > >> Btw, would it be more staightforward to check
> > >> "vcpu->arch.arch_capabilities &
> > >> ARCH_CAP_TSX_CT
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 04:24:34PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 26/06/20 20:18, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >> Btw, would it be more staightforward to check
> >> "vcpu->arch.arch_capabilities &
> >> ARCH_CAP_TSX_CTRL_MSR" rather than "*ebx | (F(RTM) | F(HLE))" even if we
> >> want
> >> to ha
On 26/06/20 20:18, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> Btw, would it be more staightforward to check "vcpu->arch.arch_capabilities &
>> ARCH_CAP_TSX_CTRL_MSR" rather than "*ebx | (F(RTM) | F(HLE))" even if we want
>> to have such a fix?
> Not really, That ends up duplicating the check in vmx_get_msr().
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:18:20AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:07:32PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 09:25:40AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> > > index 5eb618dbf211..64322446
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:07:32PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 09:25:40AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> > index 5eb618dbf211..64322446e590 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> >
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 09:25:40AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> index 5eb618dbf211..64322446e590 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> @@ -1013,9 +1013,9 @@ bool kvm_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 *eax,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:37:50PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 08:56:57AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Not really? It's solving a problem that doesn't exist in the current code
> > base (assuming TSC_CTRL is fixed), and IMO solving it in an ugly fashion.
> >
> > I wo
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 08:56:57AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Not really? It's solving a problem that doesn't exist in the current code
> base (assuming TSC_CTRL is fixed), and IMO solving it in an ugly fashion.
>
> I would much prefer that, _if_ we want to support blind KVM-internal MSR
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 08:44:16PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 25/06/20 18:25, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > I get the "what" of the change, and even the "why" to some extent, but I
> > dislike the idea of supporting/encouraging blind reads/writes to MSRs.
> > Blind writes are just asking for
On 25/06/20 18:25, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> I get the "what" of the change, and even the "why" to some extent, but I
> dislike the idea of supporting/encouraging blind reads/writes to MSRs.
> Blind writes are just asking for problems, and suppressing warnings on reads
> is almost guaranteed to
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 09:25:40AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:09:13AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 25/06/20 08:15, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > IMO, kvm_cpuid() is simply buggy. If KVM attempts to access a
> > > non-existent
> > > MSR then it darn wel
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:09:13AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 25/06/20 08:15, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > IMO, kvm_cpuid() is simply buggy. If KVM attempts to access a non-existent
> > MSR then it darn well should warn.
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> >
On 25/06/20 08:15, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> IMO, kvm_cpuid() is simply buggy. If KVM attempts to access a non-existent
> MSR then it darn well should warn.
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> index 8a294f9747aa..7ef7283011d6 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> +++
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 06:04:41PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> MSR accesses can be one of:
>
> (1) KVM internal access,
> (2) userspace access (e.g., via KVM_SET_MSRS ioctl),
> (3) guest access.
>
> The ignore_msrs was previously handled by kvm_get_msr_common() and
> kvm_set_msr_common(), whic
MSR accesses can be one of:
(1) KVM internal access,
(2) userspace access (e.g., via KVM_SET_MSRS ioctl),
(3) guest access.
The ignore_msrs was previously handled by kvm_get_msr_common() and
kvm_set_msr_common(), which is the bottom of the msr access stack. It's
working in most cases, howe
23 matches
Mail list logo
