On Thu, 2025-08-21 at 13:48 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > I think I'm a lot happier with the explicit CPUID leaf exposed by the > > hypervisor. > > Why? If the hypervisor is ultimately the one defining the state, why does it > matter which CPUID leaf its in? It matters to the guest. If there's any hypervisor anywhere which allows the bogus Skylake CPUID contents to show through to a guest, or which allows the native hardware contents of the 0x15/0x16 leaves to show even when TSC scaling is in force, then the guest cannot trust those leaves. If you tell me that 0x15 is *never* wrong when seen by a KVM guest, and that it's OK to extend the hardware CPUID support up to 0x15 even on older CPUs and there'll never be any adverse consequences from weird assumptions in guest operating systems if we do the latter... well, for a start, I won't believe you. And even if I do, I won't think it's worth the risk. Just use a hypervisor leaf :)
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
