qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH uq/master 1/2] x86: fix migration from pre-versi


From: Gleb Natapov
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH uq/master 1/2] x86: fix migration from pre-version 12
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:00:50 +0300

On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 01:46:49PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>>>> Yes.  QEMU unmarshals information from the XSAVE region and back, so it
> >>>>>> cannot support MPX or AVX-512 yet (even if KVM were).  Separate bug, 
> >>>>>> though.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> IMO this is the main issue here, not separate bug. If we gonna let guest
> >>>>> use CPU state QEMU does not support we gonna have a bad time.
> >>>>
> >>>> We cannot force the guest not to use a feature; all we can do is hide
> >>>
> >>> Of course we can't, this is correct for other features too, but this is
> >>> guest's problem.
> >>
> >> Ok, then we agree that QEMU doesn't have a problem?  The XSAVE data will
> > 
> > Which problem exactly. The problems I see is that 1. We do not support
> > MPX and AVX-512 (but this is probably not the problem you meant :)) 2. 0D
> > data is not consistent with features. Guest may not expect it and do stupid
> > things.
> 
> It is not a problem to unmarshal information out of KVM_GET_XSAVE data
> (and back).  If the guest does stupid things, it's a bug in an
> ill-behaving guest.
> 
You know I am first in line to blame guest for everything :) (who needs
guests anyway) but in this case I didn't mean that guest does something
illegal. If we advertise support for some XSAVE state in 0D leaf guest
is in his right to make conclusions we may not expect from that. It may
check corespondent feature bit and crash if it is not present for
instance.

> On the other hand, I agree that passthrough of host 0xD data is bad and
> will fix it.
> 
Thanks!

--
                        Gleb.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]