Hi Arthur,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:08:31AM +0800, Arthur Chunqi Li wrote:
Hi there,
I have noticed in Intel SDM that some kinds of CPUs support APIC
virtualization (e.g. Virtual-interrupt delivery). I checked all my
Intel CPUs' MSR and found none of them support this. So do anybody
know which
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:05 AM, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 09:05:00PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Giving the guest a seed would be highly useful, though. There are a
number of ways to do that;
On 05/01/2014 11:53 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
A CPUID leaf or an MSR advertised by a CPUID leaf has another
advantage: it's easy to use in the ASLR code -- I don't think there's
a real IDT, so there's nothing like rdmsr_safe available. It also
avoids doing anything complicated with the
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:59 AM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 05/01/2014 11:53 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
A CPUID leaf or an MSR advertised by a CPUID leaf has another
advantage: it's easy to use in the ASLR code -- I don't think there's
a real IDT, so there's nothing like
This is a note to let you know that I have just added a patch titled
MIPS: KVM: Pass reserved instruction exceptions to guest
to the linux-3.13.y-queue branch of the 3.13.y.z extended stable tree
which can be found at:
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 12:02:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Is RDSEED really reasonable here? Won't it slow down by several
orders of magnitude?
That is I think the biggest problem; RDRAND and RDSEED are fast if
they are native, but they will involve a VM exit if they need to be
The normal CPUID bit is unset I believe.
On May 1, 2014 12:02:49 PM PDT, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:59 AM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 05/01/2014 11:53 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
A CPUID leaf or an MSR advertised by a CPUID leaf has another
As I said... I think KVM has already added an emulated instructions enumeration
API.
On May 1, 2014 12:26:18 PM PDT, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 12:02:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Is RDSEED really reasonable here? Won't it slow down by several
orders of magnitude?
On May 1, 2014 12:26 PM, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 12:02:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Is RDSEED really reasonable here? Won't it slow down by several
orders of magnitude?
That is I think the biggest problem; RDRAND and RDSEED are fast if
they are native, but
RDSEED is not synchronous. It is, however, nonblocking.
On May 1, 2014 1:16:40 PM PDT, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
On May 1, 2014 12:26 PM, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 12:02:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Is RDSEED really reasonable here? Won't it slow
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:30 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
RDSEED is not synchronous. It is, however, nonblocking.
What I mean is: IIUC it's reasonable to call RDSEED a few times in a
loop and hope it works. It makes no sense to do that with
/dev/random.
On May 1, 2014 1:16:40 PM
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 01:32:55PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:30 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
RDSEED is not synchronous. It is, however, nonblocking.
What I mean is: IIUC it's reasonable to call RDSEED a few times in a
loop and hope it works. It
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:39 PM, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 01:32:55PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:30 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
RDSEED is not synchronous. It is, however, nonblocking.
What I mean is: IIUC it's reasonable to call
On 05/01/2014 01:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Even if we could emulate RDSEED effectively**, I don't really
understand what the guest is expected to do with it. And I generally
dislike defining an interface with no known sensible users, because it
means that there's a good chance that the
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 2:01 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 05/01/2014 01:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Even if we could emulate RDSEED effectively**, I don't really
understand what the guest is expected to do with it. And I generally
dislike defining an interface with no known
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 02:06:13PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
I still don't see the point. What does this do better than virtio-rng?
I believe you had been complaining about how complicated it was to set
up virtio? And this complexity is also an issue if we want to use it
to initialize
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 3:28 PM, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 02:06:13PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
I still don't see the point. What does this do better than virtio-rng?
I believe you had been complaining about how complicated it was to set
up virtio? And this
On 05/01/2014 03:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 3:28 PM, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 02:06:13PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
I still don't see the point. What does this do better than virtio-rng?
I believe you had been complaining about how
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 3:46 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 05/01/2014 03:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 3:28 PM, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 02:06:13PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
I still don't see the point. What does this do better
On 05/01/2014 03:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
I think we're comparing:
a) cpuid to detect rdrand *or* emulated rdrand followed by rdrand
to
b) cpuid to detect rdrand or the paravirt seed msr/cpuid call,
followed by rdrand or the msr or cpuid read
this seems like it barely makes a
Hi all,
I have a problem running the latest version of kvm with nested configuration.
I used to run it with kernel 3.2.2 both for L0 and L1, which works perfectly.
When I change my L0 to kernel 3.10.36, L1 to kernel 3.12.10.
When I start L2 guest in L1 with qemu-kvm. I get the following error
from
21 matches
Mail list logo
