From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zachary Amsden Subject: Re: Nested SVM and migration Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:07:43 -1000 Message-ID: <4B82B9DF.5010201@redhat.com> References: <4B80347E.7000003@redhat.com> <20100220201822.GG20833@8bytes.org> <4B806FB9.20009@redhat.com> <20100221121008.GI20833@8bytes.org> <4B8125E2.8050309@redhat.com> <4B82B411.7020907@redhat.com> <4B82B473.4010906@redhat.com> <4B82B81A.1020409@redhat.com> <4B82B8BA.4020308@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Joerg Roedel , Joerg Roedel , kvm To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10551 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752152Ab0BVRHs (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:07:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B82B8BA.4020308@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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