Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:38:12AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Joerg Roedel wrote: >> >>> From: Joerg Roedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> This patch forbids the guest to execute monitor/mwait instructions on >>> SVM. This is necessary because the guest can execute these instructions >>> if they are available even if the kvm cpuid doesn't report its >>> existence. >>> >>> >>> >> You're intercepting the instructions unconditionally. What about the case >> where cpuid does >> report monitor/mwait support? The guest can legitimately use them then. >> > > I prepared a patch for QEmu to handle this but finally not > submitted it because QEmu does not set the Monitor bit anyway. But you > are right. It is possible for userspace to set the Montior bit and the > guest won't be able to use it. > I think an architecture dependent cpuid mask feature in the kernel would > solve this problem. I'll prepare a patch for that. > >
I think I'm misunderstanding something. Is there actually an AMD cpu that supports monitor/mwait? If not (understandably, having no hyperthreading), then wouldn't executing monitor or mwait generate #UD anyway? I don't think there's need for the cpuid mask as long as setting the monitor bit cannot endanger the kernel. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
