Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 20:38:49 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc:     KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Yazen Ghannam <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm/x86: Move MSR_K7_HWCR to svm.c
Message-ID: <20190325193821.GS12016@zn.tnic>
References: <20190325171649.7311-1-bp@alien8.de>
 <20190325171649.7311-2-bp@alien8.de>
 <20190325182133.GG31069@linux.intel.com>
 <20190325183909.GQ12016@zn.tnic>
 <20190325192111.GH31069@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190325192111.GH31069@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:21:11PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Generally speaking, the goal is to support cross-vendor VMs without having
> to modify the guest kernel, i.e. exact emulation is out of scope.  This
> means "emulating" cross-vendor MSRs that the guest expects to exist to the
> point where the guest won't explode, e.g. in the case of MSR_K7_HWCR, Linux
> expects the MSR to exist on all AMD platforms and AFAICT will die during
> boot if it doesn't.
> 
> The rule of thumb for "what MSRs can a guest reasonably expect to exist"
> is fluid.

Ok, I'll keep it in the common MSR accessors in the next version.

Thx for confirming what I was suspecting.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.