RE: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH 01/13] Nested Virtualization: tools

["Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>]

Andre Przywara wrote:
> Dong, Eddie wrote:
>> Dong, Eddie wrote:
>>> # HG changeset patch
>>> # User cegger
>>> # Date 1283345869 -7200
>>> tools: Add nestedhvm guest config option
>>> 
>>> diff -r 80ef08613ec2 -r ecec3d163efa tools/libxc/xc_cpuid_x86.c
>>> --- a/tools/libxc/xc_cpuid_x86.c
>>> +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_cpuid_x86.c
>>> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
>>>  #define set_bit(idx, dst)   ((dst) |= (1u << ((idx) & 31)))
>>> 
>>>  #define DEF_MAX_BASE 0x0000000du
>>> -#define DEF_MAX_EXT  0x80000008u
>>> +#define DEF_MAX_EXT  0x8000000au
>> 
>> How can this make Intel CPU happy?
>> You may refer to my previous comments in V2.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but this is only a max boundary:
> tools/libxc/xc_cpuid_x86.c:234
>      case 0x80000000:
>          if ( regs[0] > DEF_MAX_EXT )
>              regs[0] = DEF_MAX_EXT;
>          break;
> So if an Intel CPU returns 0x80000008 here, this will be in the
> regs[0] field and thus any higher value in DEF_MAX_EXT does not
> affect the guest's CPUID response.
> So as long as Intel CPUs don't return higher values which don't match
> the AMD assignment (which is extremely unlikely), extending
> DEF_MAX_EXT is fine.
> 
But it is called as MAX_EXT and will cause some unreasonable setup of leaves. 
May you split the MACRO to _AMD & _INTEL, or a dynamic variable depending on 
CPU brand like Keir suggested? 

Thx, Eddie

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel