From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm/x86: Move MSR_K7_HWCR to svm.c Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 19:39:09 +0100 Message-ID: <20190325183909.GQ12016@zn.tnic> References: <20190325171649.7311-1-bp@alien8.de> <20190325171649.7311-2-bp@alien8.de> <20190325182133.GG31069@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: KVM , Joerg Roedel , Paolo Bonzini , Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Tom Lendacky , Tony Luck , Yazen Ghannam , LKML To: Sean Christopherson Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190325182133.GG31069@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:21:33AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > Won't this prevent emulating an AMD guest on Intel hardware, e.g. due to > injecting #GPs during boot? I guess, but... > Keeping support in kvm_{get,set}_msr_common > doesn't preclude svm_{get,set}_msr() from having SVM-specific handling for > the MSR. ... is kvm_{get,set}_msr_common() supposed to cover for all those overlapping MSRs between AMD and Intel? svm_{get,set}_msr() have a lot more AMD-specific MSRs just like vmx_{get,set}_msr() respectively for Intel. Which would mean that if you really want to support those cross-vendor emulations, you don't need the svm* and vmx* MSR accessors... or am I missing something? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.