Re: Nested SVM and migration

Zachary Amsden
2010-02-22T17:07:48Z

On 02/22/2010 07:02 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/22/2010 07:00 PM, Zachary Amsden wrote:
>>> The force vmexit would generate an INTR #vmexit even if the INTR
>>> intercept was disabled and even if no INTR is pending. However this
>>> was shot down since there was no equivalent vmx exit reason that we
>>> can except the guest to reasonably handle.
>>
>>
>> While true, my point is more precisely - how can this possibly work
>> for guests which MUST never exit SVM? As in, the hypervisor is
>> broken or deliberately disabled from taking exits, and in fact, may
>> no longer even exist in memory?
>
> These guests will be broken. My assumption was that only malicious
> guests will disable INTR intercepts (though I can imagine a
> Luvalley-like system that disables INTR intercepts when running dom0).

Not an SVM expert, but can't you pass through INTR in SVM and leave a
fully functioning guest which technically runs under SVM but requires no
hypervisor? Is that what the Luvalley system does?

Zach