>>> On 18.05.18 at 15:23, wrote:
> On 18/05/18 13:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.05.18 at 14:21, wrote:
>>> On 17/05/18 13:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 16.05.18 at 19:27, wrote:
> c/s 62b187969 "x86: further CPUID handling adjustments" make some
> adjustments.
> However, it
On 18/05/18 13:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.05.18 at 14:21, wrote:
>> On 17/05/18 13:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.05.18 at 19:27, wrote:
c/s 62b187969 "x86: further CPUID handling adjustments" make some
adjustments.
However, it breaks levelling of guests, making it imp
>>> On 18.05.18 at 14:21, wrote:
> On 17/05/18 13:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.05.18 at 19:27, wrote:
>>> c/s 62b187969 "x86: further CPUID handling adjustments" make some
>>> adjustments.
>>> However, it breaks levelling of guests, making it impossible for the
>>> toolstack
>>> to hide S
On 17/05/18 13:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.05.18 at 19:27, wrote:
>> c/s 62b187969 "x86: further CPUID handling adjustments" make some
>> adjustments.
>> However, it breaks levelling of guests, making it impossible for the
>> toolstack
>> to hide STIBP or IBPB from guests on hardware with
>>> On 16.05.18 at 19:27, wrote:
> c/s 62b187969 "x86: further CPUID handling adjustments" make some adjustments.
> However, it breaks levelling of guests, making it impossible for the toolstack
> to hide STIBP or IBPB from guests on hardware with up-to-date microcode.
>
> The dom0 issue referenc
>>> On 16.05.18 at 19:27, wrote:
> c/s f9616884e (a backport of c/s 0d703a701 "x86/feature: Definitions for
> Indirect Branch Controls") missed a CPUID adjustment when calculating the raw
> featureset. This impacts host administrator diagnostics.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Dyasli
I continue to
c/s f9616884e (a backport of c/s 0d703a701 "x86/feature: Definitions for
Indirect Branch Controls") missed a CPUID adjustment when calculating the raw
featureset. This impacts host administrator diagnostics.
Signed-off-by: Sergey Dyasli
c/s 62b187969 "x86: further CPUID handling adjustments" ma
