From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44445) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XHXXK-0005v1-Hi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:20:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XHXXB-00047i-CJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:20:14 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]:38172) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XHXXB-00042Y-5y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:20:05 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id bs8so7294667wib.9 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 05:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <53EB57AB.60801@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:18:51 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <538EC63A.80405@redhat.com> <20140812185552.GJ3011@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> <53EA6700.2060603@redhat.com> <20140812192952.GK3011@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> In-Reply-To: <20140812192952.GK3011@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Qemu: Fix eax for cpuid leaf 0x40000000 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eduardo Habkost Cc: Jidong Xiao , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, KVM Il 12/08/2014 21:29, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:12:00PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 12/08/2014 20:55, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto: >>> This makes the CPUID data change under the guest's feet during >>> live-migration. >>> >>> Adding compat code to ensure older machine-types keep the old behavior >>> is necessary, but in this specific case it is mostly harmless because >>> 0x0 is documented as being equivalent to 0x40000001. >>> >>> (But I don't know how guests are supposed to behave when they see >>> CPUID[KVM_CPUID_SIGNATURE_NEXT].EAX==0.) >> >> The only obvious thing to do would be to treat it as 0x40000101. > > I just want to be sure the guests really do that. If we know guests > won't do anything different with the CPUID change, I won't mind having > no compat code for this. > Considering that only two leaves are defined for KVM, and both are mandatory I don't think current guests have any reason to look at CPUID[KVM_CPUID_SIGNATURE | kvm_base].EAX at all. Paolo