[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 01/12] x86: Reject CPU policies with vendors other than the host's
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.garciavallejo@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 18:41:48 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 165.204.84.17) smtp.rcpttodomain=suse.com smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine sp=quarantine pct=100) action=none header.from=amd.com; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none (0)
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector10001; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=7s+q3xsik3zSUdvoW+sB/pYMv9Mah5Pivq6sXERP4ck=; b=gKcvwh20KdshPW8nBxdmbKu/bouNV0vgCyyrRKNU7/a4hHFjgUI1Qv75J+Ugnq14fUyN/BrT0pNYR8JQVJgXbFOM7rROipupwsnqK8iMGvAaYXJUiH18Eqvp8pLHUVzPoOVqesazMEhdAtKn+2y1r8d+ldGhjA98q9FfF8kAHgT2QaoTqE8tRiFXM2j059kLgNN61bg4wifRp3jlmmSlJfpSkwp9BuWAmwXqeYfHuZJCU+JnJvN51ineAugsldggyaYGYMDcKewSQwzql06MhZIv+g2F/xGvdszAC/HQbVvMxLuCzqtxpgFdEohse3sS/HqMUevAXB/HeSZCL/loqA==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector10001; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=eUwERUnadp0LZE8owYAhc+XB8r+O7D6CvJDWr43QVTQGn+H1FZn0eAmbipzxUtqK6rX8GfnTgMiWH/Nau0FDwFd924MK+i/TwX7S0o3pNp9ltmqYQzGtcXUdkSD31IQPGQ/ymBKU5DLp8ccS1zpgAF41GYaHi5dawU1Kc5JYRgKxELwPDi2nINYhQiAxf+p7FkGpe5BrrHgtDgko1Wdz7YrhnAoMH0nmeXlMA6U/me1pg1otXKNC6/vTL4MAM1akiouVyfbRp+ptdFT9LC+9TxRodQOwmCDSPhnxg0049gsPYiox/208P64edYsRYFWu2Jbhh2bm25rhEb7qpupUyQ==
- Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@xxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 17:42:28 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On Wed Feb 11, 2026 at 4:41 PM CET, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.02.2026 17:15, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>> --- a/xen/lib/x86/policy.c
>> +++ b/xen/lib/x86/policy.c
>> @@ -15,7 +15,8 @@ int x86_cpu_policies_are_compatible(const struct
>> cpu_policy *host,
>> #define FAIL_MSR(m) \
>> do { e.msr = (m); goto out; } while ( 0 )
>>
>> - if ( guest->basic.max_leaf > host->basic.max_leaf )
>> + if ( (guest->x86_vendor != host->x86_vendor) ||
>
> With the subsequent "unknown" discussion also in mind, I wonder: Should we
> fail the request here when either side is "unknown"?
That'd preclude the creation of VMs on new vendors. At that point, might as
well drop support for unknown vendors altogether. I wouldn't mind that.
I was thinking of comparing the x86_vendor_id bytes instead, as I answered
to Roger. Then the invariant that only $VENDOR VMs run on $VENDOR hosts is
preserved even if we don't know about them.
Cheers,
Alejandro.
|
