Re: Nested SVM and migration

[Zachary Amsden <zamsden@redhat.com>]

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