Re: Nested SVM and migration

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

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).

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