I think both patches are
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 20:27 Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 17/07/20 14:56, Jon Doron wrote:
> > Based on an analysis of the HyperV firmwares (Gen1 and Gen2) it seems
> > like the SCONTROL is not being set to the ENABLED state as like we have
> > thought.
> >
> > Also from a test done by Vitaly Kuznetsov, running a nested HyperV it
> > was concluded that the first access to the SCONTROL MSR with a read
> > resulted with the value of 0x1, aka HV_SYNIC_CONTROL_ENABLE.
> >
> > It's important to note that this diverges from the value states in the
> > HyperV TLFS of 0.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jon Doron <ari...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > target/i386/kvm.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/target/i386/kvm.c b/target/i386/kvm.c
> > index b8455c89ed..6a62e8ae94 100644
> > --- a/target/i386/kvm.c
> > +++ b/target/i386/kvm.c
> > @@ -1904,6 +1904,8 @@ void kvm_arch_reset_vcpu(X86CPU *cpu)
> >
> > if (hyperv_feat_enabled(cpu, HYPERV_FEAT_SYNIC)) {
> > int i;
> > +
> > + env->msr_hv_synic_control = HV_SYNIC_ENABLE;
> > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(env->msr_hv_synic_sint); i++) {
> > env->msr_hv_synic_sint[i] = HV_SINT_MASKED;
> > }
> >
>
> Are both patches needed or only the Hyper-V one?
>
> Paolo
>
>
