From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stable-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:56752 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750998AbeBSOHP (ORCPT <rfc822;stable@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:07:15 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM/VMX: Emulate MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@amazon.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
References: <1517938181-15317-1-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
 <1517938181-15317-8-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
 <4be4e462-61be-53a9-b0e1-3508466d1645@redhat.com>
 <CALMp9eQQ-94g=fNanvwpr6b2pmH87RPGr6s9gOv43dUDABFuhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a4693ca3-face-e1f5-b619-74fc59870ce9@redhat.com>
 <1519047329.7876.64.camel@infradead.org>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <6ef598e6-de89-abdb-f157-dc12bb24ef9d@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:07:11 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1519047329.7876.64.camel@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <stable.vger.kernel.org>

On 19/02/2018 14:35, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 14:10 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Hardware seems like a reasonable place to get the default value (cf.
>>> the VMX capability MSRs).
>>
>> There are some differences:
>>
>> - a zero value for ARCH_CAPABILITIES should be safe, while a zero value
>> for VMX capabilities doesn't really make sense.  On the contrary, a
>> nonzero value for ARCH_CAPABILITIES is not safe across live migration.
> 
> Any VMM which is going to support live migration surely needs to pay at
> least a small amount of attention to the features it exposes? Exposing
> the ARCH_CAPABILITIES CPUID bit without actually looking at the
> contents of the associated MSR which that bit advertises would be... a
> little strange, would it not? 

I think what we should do is simply backport Tom Lendacky's series to
4.14 and 4.9 ASAP, and add ARCH_CAPABILITIES support there.  Then the
question of the default becomes moot, more or less.

Paolo

> I don't see why we care so much about the *default* value, in that
> context.