On 09/09/2021 12:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.09.2021 13:34, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 09/09/2021 10:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 08.09.2021 18:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/vmcb.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/vmcb.c
@@ -70,7 +70,8 @@ static int construct_vmcb
On 09.09.2021 13:34, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 09/09/2021 10:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.09.2021 18:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/vmcb.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/vmcb.c
>>> @@ -70,7 +70,8 @@ static int construct_vmcb(struct vcpu *v)
>>> GENERAL2_INTERCEP
On 09/09/2021 10:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.09.2021 18:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> The RDPRU instruction isn't supported at all (and it is unclear how this can
>> ever be offered safely to guests).
> An implicit hint to me to consider "x86emul: support RDPRU" rejected? That's
> still in my queu
On 08.09.2021 18:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> The RDPRU instruction isn't supported at all (and it is unclear how this can
> ever be offered safely to guests).
An implicit hint to me to consider "x86emul: support RDPRU" rejected? That's
still in my queue waiting for ...
> However, a guest which ig
The RDPRU instruction isn't supported at all (and it is unclear how this can
ever be offered safely to guests). However, a guest which ignores CPUID and
blindly executes RDPRU will find that it functions.
Use the intercept and terminate with #UD. While at it, fold SKINIT into the
same "unconditi
