From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89572211F for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 08:13:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751443990; cv=none; b=d+rxX+caMiSVaz0AdRDiCt4qeErZrBuhzk2R92nDAEbjiytOiBD+sqo/+cqNI/syCqCY+00USH2dxbVWe80HI7zAcEKWLACclLiYRo7jFUnLQlPQyWXu0s7Q3byHMvyqv2VeaDisbu1v+QpL2OtjTB0L2q5fieeRF9YQZh5Mp6U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751443990; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pqKQoXF566I3jN7jBYoVqec+bIUayudHtA0Prhir1Lk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=aSCt57CBymTdPKFkw+SkQDwjTOgTAPbwbqdWCK6tiXsL1Ort+07KNyBWjsG5MDij1Nxr24OnhLKXNonyRheWyJ9n6ZmwZiGxeVCT8xqskyEAf+KUfTMxPuCR9/XDXVTVBAwRI5HOuk6ESXaubXJTXd0u8lhoTj4AgP3F8+2g+a8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=adcXFF4R; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.14 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="adcXFF4R" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1751443989; x=1782979989; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=pqKQoXF566I3jN7jBYoVqec+bIUayudHtA0Prhir1Lk=; b=adcXFF4RQw7mOaYpONs2Qit57o400Ya7ASOC136XJp8UPSnwhW8ItUkk izoWBKsu4tF+/CcHvm9W7hgy8BB+IJg1jKBh2lR2yqtUnkZn3FlFCq5VX MfvSdJQiwdjsYA9w2a8dBcU/0PEw3ZJTxxzuxsyyhtpjtc3ZN/qcy+OFT qOihB6cT+TGWz3n4WcPERmMYzAgfsVSptmW4j9DSrBXINJ4yqo2EGddrB xdL5wxEiaVU5rE9R/NhjO5QGN2mcZOGxyjAl9IHPq5PAfBbA4tyEEqW2q l3i5kyXMSrGBeG76+/4DIlpwkVNIdCzkbFuqu5VY7PLR4wOFflCXH7ZgF g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: XBjtXw5nSBq73RlsytYrTg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: hJMeNtnNTyqKd8XWNtOgDg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11481"; a="53821378" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,281,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="53821378" Received: from fmviesa004.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.144]) by fmvoesa108.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Jul 2025 01:13:08 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 6z/xjzRbToaDXZD/mBpeLw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: G+Ui2uqNQlmmGX/qhD8vzA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,281,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="159524773" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.39]) by fmviesa004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Jul 2025 01:13:04 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 16:34:29 +0800 From: Zhao Liu To: Xiaoyao Li Cc: Igor Mammedov , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Alexandre Chartre , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-stable@nongnu.org, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com, Sean Christopherson , kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386/cpu: ARCH_CAPABILITIES should not be advertised on AMD Message-ID: References: <20250630133025.4189544-1-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com> <20250701150500.3a4001e9@fedora> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: > I think we need firstly aligned on what the behavior of the Windows that hit > "unsupported processor" is. > > My understanding is, the Windows is doing something like > > if (is_AMD && CPUID(arch_capabilities)) > error(unsupported processor) This is just a guess; it's also possible that Windows checked this MSR and found the necessary feature missing. Windows 11 has very strict hardware support requirements. > And I think this behavior is not correct. > > However, it seems not the behavior of the Windows from your understanding. > So what's the behavior in you mind? Guessing and discussing what Windows' code actually does is unlikely to yield results. It's closed-source, and even if someone knows the answer, he probably won't disclose it due to contractual restrictions. Thanks, Zhao