[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: kvm: Don't enable MONITOR by defau
From: |
Eduardo Habkost |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: kvm: Don't enable MONITOR by default on any CPU model |
Date: |
Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:18:43 -0300 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 02:14:00PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:44:33AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 30/04/2014 03:11, Marcelo Tosatti ha scritto:
> > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 06:17:17PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > >> KVM never supported the MONITOR flag so it doesn't make sense to have it
> > >> enabled by default when KVM is enabled.
> > >>
> > >> The rationale here is similar to the cases where it makes sense to have
> > >> a feature enabled by default on all CPU models when on KVM mode (e.g.
> > >> x2apic). In this case we are having a feature disabled by default for
> > >> the same reasons.
> > >>
> > >> In this case we don't need machine-type compat code because it is
> > >> currently impossible to run a KVM VM with the MONITOR flag set.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden>
> > >
> > > Why relying on the kernel filtering is not sufficient ?
> >
> > Because that would break "-cpu ...,enforce". In fact many old models
> > are currently broken because they were never tested with "-cpu
> > ...,enforce". For example:
>
> Isnt the point of enforce to fail if the provided feature cannot be
> exposed ?
>
> That is, if the emulated CPU specifies MONITOR, and KVM can't provide
> it, then enforce should fail initialization?
Exactly. But why should we have a CPU that is will never run, by
default? The point here is to have reasonable defaults.
--
Eduardo