Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Add three MSRs to the list of ignored MSRs

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

On 14/04/2016 18:29, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> I don't see that as a compromise.  igd would fail even if we fixed the
> host side, so we'll have problems regardless of what we do.

Would it?  I suppose that Shuai tested his patch.

> We have a bug, because certain v/f/m/s implies some features (MSRs,
> constant_tsc, ...) and those aren't emulated.
> 
> I do agree that we don't want to fix the bug, either by whitelisting and
> emulating features that makes little sense in virt or by forcing guests
> to adopt new v/f/m/s (the latter option is more reasonable),

Well, the Pentium was the last processor without MSRs. :)  More code
would break if you set f=5 than if you return a bogus value for
MSR_PLATFORM_INFO.  This is the compromise I was referring to.

The only solution is to bug Intel to add CPUID bits even for
non-architectural features.  Then _if_ the CPUID bit is there you use
f/m/s to find the details of the feature.  Intel likes to get feedback
from us and we did provide such feedback.  The problem is that the 2-3
years that pass between giving feedback and getting our hands on the
silicon.

Paolo

> because
> rare occurences of the bug take *much* less work to fix on the guest
> side.  (The only part I'm concerned about is that we don't have a good
> excuse for some guest errors ...)