Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/HVM: don't give the wrong impression of WRMSR succeeding

2018-02-26 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 23/02/18 08:36, Jan Beulich wrote: > ... for non-existent MSRs: wrmsr_hypervisor_regs()'s comment clearly > says that the function returns 0 for unrecognized MSRs, so > {svm,vmx}_msr_write_intercept() should not convert this into success. We > don't want to unconditionally fail the access

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/HVM: don't give the wrong impression of WRMSR succeeding

2018-02-23 Thread Tian, Kevin
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 4:37 PM > > ... for non-existent MSRs: wrmsr_hypervisor_regs()'s comment clearly > says that the function returns 0 for unrecognized MSRs, so > {svm,vmx}_msr_write_intercept() should not convert this into success. We

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/HVM: don't give the wrong impression of WRMSR succeeding

2018-02-23 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 23.02.18 at 11:07, wrote: > On 23/02/2018 08:36, Jan Beulich wrote: >> ... for non-existent MSRs: wrmsr_hypervisor_regs()'s comment clearly >> says that the function returns 0 for unrecognized MSRs, so >> {svm,vmx}_msr_write_intercept() should not convert this

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/HVM: don't give the wrong impression of WRMSR succeeding

2018-02-23 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 23/02/2018 08:36, Jan Beulich wrote: > ... for non-existent MSRs: wrmsr_hypervisor_regs()'s comment clearly > says that the function returns 0 for unrecognized MSRs, so > {svm,vmx}_msr_write_intercept() should not convert this into success. We > don't want to unconditionally fail the access