> It appears it was a deliberate decision, due in part to the fact that the > traditional flow of checking CPL exceptions before intercepts typically > applies to using instructions in an illegal way, but the user is not doing > anything illegal here by executing CPUID which is normally a legal > instruction at CPL3. > > That said, clearly the behavior is different now between the vendors, however > at this point the feedback I got is that our architects want to stick with > the existing behavior unless there is a strong reason that it is a problem > for SW.
What is a HV expected to do for such a CPUID guest exit? -- C.
