Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] VMX: correct feature checks for MPX and XSAVES

2016-09-06 Thread Tian, Kevin
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 6:21 PM > > Their VMCS fields aren't tied to the respective base CPU feature flags > but instead to VMX specific ones. > > Note that while the VMCS GUEST_BNDCFGS field exists if either of the > two respective featur

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] VMX: correct feature checks for MPX and XSAVES

2016-09-05 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 02/09/16 11:21, Jan Beulich wrote: > Their VMCS fields aren't tied to the respective base CPU feature flags > but instead to VMX specific ones. > > Note that while the VMCS GUEST_BNDCFGS field exists if either of the > two respective features is available, MPX continues to get exposed to > guest

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] VMX: correct feature checks for MPX and XSAVES

2016-09-02 Thread Jan Beulich
Their VMCS fields aren't tied to the respective base CPU feature flags but instead to VMX specific ones. Note that while the VMCS GUEST_BNDCFGS field exists if either of the two respective features is available, MPX continues to get exposed to guests only with both features present. Also add the