On 12.01.2023 15:16, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 12/01/2023 1:26 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The other thing I'd like to understand (and having an answer to this
>> would have been better before re-applying my R-b to this re-based
>> logic) is towards the lack of feature checks here. hvm_get_reg()
>> c
On 12/01/2023 1:26 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.01.2023 18:18, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> @@ -2471,6 +2477,9 @@ static uint64_t cf_check vmx_get_reg(struct vcpu *v,
>> unsigned int reg)
>> }
>> return val;
>>
>> +case MSR_PKRS:
>> +return (v == curr) ? rdpkrs() : msr
On 10.01.2023 18:18, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> @@ -2471,6 +2477,9 @@ static uint64_t cf_check vmx_get_reg(struct vcpu *v,
> unsigned int reg)
> }
> return val;
>
> +case MSR_PKRS:
> +return (v == curr) ? rdpkrs() : msrs->pkrs;
Nothing here or ...
> @@ -2514,6 +2525,1
On 10/01/2023 5:18 pm, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Have guest_{rd,wr}msr(), via hvm_{get,set}_reg(), access either the live
> register, or stashed state, depending on context. Include MSR_PKRS for
> migration, and let the guest have full access.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beul
Have guest_{rd,wr}msr(), via hvm_{get,set}_reg(), access either the live
register, or stashed state, depending on context. Include MSR_PKRS for
migration, and let the guest have full access.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich
---
CC: Jan Beulich
CC: Roger Pau Monné
CC: Wei
