On 06.05.2024 10:45, Fonyuy-Asheri Caleb wrote: >> From: "Roger Pau Monné" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 10:34:20 AM > >> For basic leaves (0x000000xx) we support up to leaf 0xd (XSTATE). It >> doesn't mean there are no further leaves behind it, but we likely >> still have no use for them, and hence they are not part of the policy. >> The cpu-policy is used to store a (cpuid) policy object for guests, >> so if the information exposed in those leaves are related to features >> that are never exposed to guests is makes no sense to have space for >> them. > > So if I understand you well, you mean before extending this, we need to > perform a study on the > leaves to confirm how useful they are to the guests depending on the cpu > information they carry.
It's not only question of usefulness, but of correctness. We can't blindly expose leaves. Jan
