On 09.12.2022 10:59, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 12:24:54PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/msr.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/msr.c >> @@ -699,12 +699,16 @@ int guest_wrmsr(struct vcpu *v, uint32_t >> } >> else > > I think you could turn this into an `else if` and check if the new > value and the current one differ on the SSBD bit?
I'd prefer not to: Keeping it as I have it will likely reduce code churn if a 2nd bit wants supporting in that MSR. > Provided it fixes the issue: > > Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]> Thanks, but I'm a little puzzled by the constraint: Imo even if this doesn't address the observed issue, it still fixes one aspect of wrong behavior here. The sole difference then would be that the Reported-by: would go away. Jan
