Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/6] x86/emul: dedup hvmemul_cpuid() and pv_emul_cpuid()

2018-11-15 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 15.11.18 at 15:23, wrote: > On 09/11/2018 17:16, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> >>> However, one >>> issue already might be that in order for bits in a (sub)leaf above >>> (guest) limits to come out all clear, it is guest_cpuid() which cuts >>> things off. Neither cpuid_featureset_to_policy() nor

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/6] x86/emul: dedup hvmemul_cpuid() and pv_emul_cpuid()

2018-11-15 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 09/11/2018 17:16, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >> However, one >> issue already might be that in order for bits in a (sub)leaf above >> (guest) limits to come out all clear, it is guest_cpuid() which cuts >> things off. Neither cpuid_featureset_to_policy() nor its inverse >> nor sanitise_featureset()

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/6] x86/emul: dedup hvmemul_cpuid() and pv_emul_cpuid()

2018-11-13 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 14.11.18 at 01:20, wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 01:17:59AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 09.11.18 at 18:16, wrote: >> > LWP doesn't exist any more, even on the hardware it used to exist on. >> > It was never implemented on Fam17h, and was removed from Fam15/16h in a >> >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/6] x86/emul: dedup hvmemul_cpuid() and pv_emul_cpuid()

2018-11-13 Thread Woods, Brian
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 01:17:59AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 09.11.18 at 18:16, wrote: > > On 06/11/18 16:16, Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 06.11.18 at 16:52, wrote: > >>> On 06/11/18 15:38, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 05.11.18 at 12:21, wrote: > > They are identical, so

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/6] x86/emul: dedup hvmemul_cpuid() and pv_emul_cpuid()

2018-11-12 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 09.11.18 at 18:16, wrote: > On 06/11/18 16:16, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 06.11.18 at 16:52, wrote: >>> On 06/11/18 15:38, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 05.11.18 at 12:21, wrote: > They are identical, so provide a single x86emul_cpuid() instead. > > As x86_emulate() now only

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/6] x86/emul: dedup hvmemul_cpuid() and pv_emul_cpuid()

2018-11-09 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 06/11/18 16:16, Jan Beulich wrote: On 06.11.18 at 16:52, wrote: >> On 06/11/18 15:38, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 05.11.18 at 12:21, wrote: They are identical, so provide a single x86emul_cpuid() instead. As x86_emulate() now only uses the ->cpuid() hook for real CPUID

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/6] x86/emul: dedup hvmemul_cpuid() and pv_emul_cpuid()

2018-11-06 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 06.11.18 at 16:52, wrote: > On 06/11/18 15:38, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 05.11.18 at 12:21, wrote: >>> They are identical, so provide a single x86emul_cpuid() instead. >>> >>> As x86_emulate() now only uses the ->cpuid() hook for real CPUID > instructions, >>> the hook can be omitted

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/6] x86/emul: dedup hvmemul_cpuid() and pv_emul_cpuid()

2018-11-06 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 06/11/18 15:38, Jan Beulich wrote: On 05.11.18 at 12:21, wrote: >> They are identical, so provide a single x86emul_cpuid() instead. >> >> As x86_emulate() now only uses the ->cpuid() hook for real CPUID >> instructions, >> the hook can be omitted from all special-purpose emulation ops. >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/6] x86/emul: dedup hvmemul_cpuid() and pv_emul_cpuid()

2018-11-06 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 05.11.18 at 12:21, wrote: > They are identical, so provide a single x86emul_cpuid() instead. > > As x86_emulate() now only uses the ->cpuid() hook for real CPUID instructions, > the hook can be omitted from all special-purpose emulation ops. So I was expecting the hook to go away

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/6] x86/emul: dedup hvmemul_cpuid() and pv_emul_cpuid()

2018-11-05 Thread Andrew Cooper
They are identical, so provide a single x86emul_cpuid() instead. As x86_emulate() now only uses the ->cpuid() hook for real CPUID instructions, the hook can be omitted from all special-purpose emulation ops. Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper --- CC: Jan Beulich CC: Wei Liu ---