From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NCdTz-0002V6-Di for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:17:51 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NCdTq-0002Su-DF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:17:48 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44500 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NCdTq-0002Sn-5M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:17:42 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:54788) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NCdTp-00082E-2j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:17:42 -0500 Message-ID: <1F775774A6D54955836164CA63C6BFBA@FSCPC> From: "Sebastian Herbszt" References: <20091122140853.GI3193@redhat.com> <20091122172101.GB9880@redhat.com> <38AF5F086DB24529A1D605A0E2414FD0@FSCPC> <20091122195136.GC9880@redhat.com> <74E6EFE7D92346E29A2E321F017E6308@FSCPC> <20091123072823.GB2999@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20091123072823.GB2999@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:15:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH][SEABIOS] Make SMBIOS table pass MS SVVP test List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gleb Natapov Cc: kevin@koconnor.net, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 09:41:26PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote: >> Gleb Natapov wrote: >> >On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 06:39:16PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote: >> >>Gleb Natapov wrote: >> >>>On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 05:51:41PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote: >> >>>>Gleb Natapov wrote: >> >>>>>Microsoft SVVP (Server Virtualization Validation Program) expects >> >>>>>arbitrary SMBIOS field to have certain values otherwise it fails. >> >>>>>We all want to make Microsoft happy don't we? So lets put values MS >> >>>>>expects in there. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>Values modified by the patch: >> >>>>>Type 0: >> >>>>> Bit 2 of byte 2 must be 1 >> >>>>>Type 1: >> >>>>> Manufacturer/product string should not be empty >> >>>>>Type 3: >> >>>>> Manufacturer string should not be empty >> >>>>>Type 4: >> >>>>> Processor manufacturer should no be empty >> >>>>> Max/current CPU speed shouldn't be unknown >> >>>>>Type 16: >> >>>>> Memory should have error correction. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov >> >>>>>diff --git a/src/smbios.c b/src/smbios.c >> >>>>>index f1b43f2..332bb4e 100644 >> >>>>>--- a/src/smbios.c >> >>>>>+++ b/src/smbios.c >> >>>>>@@ -96,7 +96,8 @@ smbios_init_type_0(void *start) >> >>>>> memset(p->bios_characteristics, 0, 8); >> >>>>> p->bios_characteristics[0] = 0x08; /* BIOS characteristics not supported */ >> >>>>> p->bios_characteristics_extension_bytes[0] = 0; >> >>>>>- p->bios_characteristics_extension_bytes[1] = 0; >> >>>>>+ /* Enable targeted content distribution. Needed for SVVP */ >> >>>>>+ p->bios_characteristics_extension_bytes[1] = 4; >> >>>>> >> >>>>> if (!qemu_cfg_smbios_load_field(0, offsetof(struct smbios_type_0, >> >>>>> system_bios_major_release), >> >>>> >> >>>>Are the BIOS characteristics extension bytes valid if BIOS characteristics is not supported? >> >>>I have no idea. SVVP test complains though. >> >> >> >>p->bios_characteristics[0] = 0x08; /* BIOS characteristics not supported */ >> >> >> >>Can you retest with this line removed? >> >> >> >I will, but I don't expect different result. Why should I? >> >> I would suggest to remove the line if it still does pass the test. >> > As a different patch. Also may be putting real info there instead of > just deleting the line? Ok - sounds good if bios_characteristics gets proper system based values. >> [snip] >> >> >>>>>/* Type 4 -- Processor Information */ >> >>>>>@@ -198,7 +199,7 @@ smbios_init_type_4(void *start, unsigned int cpu_number) >> >>>>> p->socket_designation_str = 1; >> >>>>> p->processor_type = 0x03; /* CPU */ >> >>>>> p->processor_family = 0x01; /* other */ >> >>>>>- p->processor_manufacturer_str = 0; >> >>>>>+ p->processor_manufacturer_str = 2; >> >>>>> >> >>>>> u32 cpuid_signature, ebx, ecx, cpuid_features; >> >>>>> cpuid(1, &cpuid_signature, &ebx, &ecx, &cpuid_features); >> >>>>>@@ -209,8 +210,8 @@ smbios_init_type_4(void *start, unsigned int cpu_number) >> >>>>> p->voltage = 0; >> >>>>> p->external_clock = 0; >> >>>>> >> >>>>>- p->max_speed = 0; /* unknown */ >> >>>>>- p->current_speed = 0; /* unknown */ >> >>>>>+ p->max_speed = 2000; >> >>>>>+ p->current_speed = 2000; >> >>>>> >> >>>>> p->status = 0x41; /* socket populated, CPU enabled */ >> >>>>> p->processor_upgrade = 0x01; /* other */ >> >>>>>@@ -221,10 +222,10 @@ smbios_init_type_4(void *start, unsigned int cpu_number) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> start += sizeof(struct smbios_type_4); >> >>>>> >> >>>>>- memcpy((char *)start, "CPU " "\0" "" "\0" "", 7); >> >>>>>- ((char *)start)[4] = cpu_number + '0'; >> >>>>>+ memcpy((char *)start, "CPU \0QEMU\0\0", 12); >> >>>>>+ ((char *)start)[4] = cpu_number + '0'; >> >>>>> >> >>>>>- return start+7; >> >>>>>+ return start+12; >> >>>>>} >> >>>> >> >>>>Should the manufacturer not depend on the emulated cpu? At least VMware uses the output from >> >>>>CPUID (GenuineIntel) ; tho my BIOS does just report "Intel". >> >>>I what it to be something fictional. We support migration from Intel to >> >>>AMD and back so this info is meaningless in virtualization environment. >> >> >> >>Does the system still report "GenuineIntel" if migrated from Intel to AMD host? >> >>I don't see a problem reporting the emulated cpu vendor, since it's not supposed to change during >> >>the lifetime of a VM, right? >> >> >> >Well, real system don't report cpuid value here why should we? It is >> >QEMU and not intel or amd manufactured this CPU after all. >> >> I don't think this argumentation brings us forward. After all i could argue for stopping using Intels >> pci vendor id for the pci bridge since they didn't manufactured it either. >> > pci ids are different in that they are used to find driver for a device. > If there was a field in PCI config space to store device manufacturer > name it would be reasonable to put "QEMU" there. > > This SMBIOS field describe CPU manufacturer and serves only informational > purpose. Look at /proc/cpuinfo on qemu VM. The model name reported there > is "QEMU Virtual CPU version 0.9.1" not some real value. Actually mine has vendor_id: GenuineIntel model_name: Pentium II (Klamath) Might be different on KVM tho (or if you specify -cpu). Beside if seabios is used with coreboot on a real system the cpu vendor is not QEMU; nor is it on Bochs. - Sebastian