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
> 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
>>> 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
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