[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/16] x86/cpu: Detect VMX features on Intel, Centaur and Zhaoxin CPUs
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:11:24PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 04/10/19 23:56, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * The high bits contain the allowed-1 settings, i.e. features that can
> > + * be turned on. The low bits contain the allowed-0 settings, i.e.
> > + * features that can be turned off. Ignore the allowed-0 settings,
> > + * if a feature can be turned on then it's supported.
> > + */
> > + rdmsr(MSR_IA32_VMX_PINBASED_CTLS, ign, supported);
> For QEMU, we're defining a feature as supported if a feature can be
> turned both on and off. Since msr_low and msr_high can be defined
> respectively as must-be-one and can-be-one, the features become
> "msr_high & ~msr_low".

That makes sense for Qemu, but I don't think it's appropriate for this
type of reporting. E.g. if EPT and Unrestricted Guest are must-be-one on
a hypothetical (virtual) CPU, it'd be odd to not list them as a supported

For actual hardware (well, Intel hardware), as proposed it's a moot point.
The only features that are must-be-one (even without "true" MSRs) and are
documented in the SDM are CR3_LOAD_EXITING, CR3_STORE_EXITING,
SAVE_DEBUG_CONTROLS, and LOAD_DEBUG_CONTROLS, none of which are reported
in /proc/cpuinfo.

> Also, shouldn't this use the "true" feature availability MSRs if available?

Only if incorporating the "& ~msr_low" can-be-one logic. If a feature is
considered supported if it must-be-one or can-be-one then the true MSR and
vanilla MSR will yield the same feature set.

> Paolo

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-07 21:55    [W:0.102 / U:0.492 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site