From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: 2 CPU Conformance Issue in KVM/x86
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:44:57 +0100
Message-ID: <54FECB29.8090800@redhat.com>
References: <A6F671BC-983C-4005-87E9-FCC68DEF0D30@gmail.com> <54F58471.7020906@redhat.com> <54FDD39C.9060908@gmail.com> <54FDF574.1020102@redhat.com> <54FDF969.7080801@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Avi Kivity <avi.kivity@gmail.com>,
	Nadav Amit <namit@cs.technion.ac.il>,
	KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	=?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51735 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751057AbbCJKpN (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 10 Mar 2015 06:45:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <54FDF969.7080801@gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>



On 09/03/2015 20:50, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> Is the issue emulating a higher MAXPHYADDR on the guest than is
>>> available on the host? I don't think there's any need to support that.
>> No, indeed.  The only problem is that the failure mode is quite horrible
>> (you get a triple fault, possibly while the guest is running).
> 
> Can't qemu simply check for it?

Yes.  But right now it doesn't even try to do something sensible with
MAXPHYADDR. :/

Paolo