Re: Nested SVM and migration

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 02/21/2010 03:09 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>
>> I don't think you can tell, unless the host cpu modifying the vmcb is
>> synchronized with the guest (or the guest modifies its own vmcb).  But
>> this is all academic.
>>      
> Hmm, another thing comes to mind. We would need some redesign of the
> nested_svm code to allow userspace to put a vcpu directly into nested
> state. With the MSR approach, all userspace does is to write MSRs into
> the vcpu before the first run?
>    

(Either synthetic msrs, or an new state ioctl).  The state would contain 
a bit that says whether the guest is in guest or host mode.

However, since we're breaking the architecture one way or another, let's 
just go with the synthetic INTR intercept.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function