From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C31FC7EE30 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 08:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uWsaw-0007Iz-3g; Wed, 02 Jul 2025 04:13:30 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uWsai-0007Gy-Um; Wed, 02 Jul 2025 04:13:20 -0400 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([192.198.163.14]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uWsae-0001QM-TK; Wed, 02 Jul 2025 04:13:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1751443993; x=1782979993; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=pqKQoXF566I3jN7jBYoVqec+bIUayudHtA0Prhir1Lk=; b=MbR5n2ePimLOjDPwEHB9AmNV9llXDv9/5B6rC9h41hzpZ/kweYGnm5pz hElA7m/x4ttCpuahvgSDzlPXDwMBKLXces0BKBeSTu+ZoA3kINcSC5ink qd8ZXiQcad4nfip61S1Q28TNXs0hupp+JqAdioyENV/OgA7VN5xP179v5 6npnSsiNYYwBbwtDJ/cpzjNWDvsQ5aHgmtUWS8fMTcOMrTutDhWIzfarr zC+F+WHx+9cxwAP404zQ6YyxdwnfRvrH3tC/J2wrDXTAifIoITBja8P6w 5ldKTBAVvNEa9HMxDLmCuOFw2jTLQ+1h/zfEnRQvaXoOm4LpMjahjzRvq A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 3r7ie9RrSmqwH/NGnowqSA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: rESAzTOOTY+GPpOtIHIzlQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11481"; a="53821377" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,281,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="53821377" 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=192.198.163.14; envelope-from=zhao1.liu@intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org > 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