* Status of "Drop nested support for CPUs without NRIPS" patch
@ 2025-12-14 16:08 Alessandro Ratti
2025-12-19 18:44 ` Sean Christopherson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Alessandro Ratti @ 2025-12-14 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maciej S. Szmigiero, Sean Christopherson; +Cc: kvm
Hi,
I was investigating the TODO in svm_check_intercept() about advertising
NRIPS unconditionally, and found an old patch by Sean Christopherson
(with Maciej S. Szmigiero's sign-off) that simply requires NRIPS for
nested virtualization rather than trying to emulate it.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/f0302382cf45d7a9527b4aebbfe694bbcfa7aff5.1651440202.git.maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com/
Is there a reason this approach wasn't taken? Was there pushback on
dropping support for pre-2009 CPUs, or did it just fall through the
cracks?
If the approach is still acceptable, I'd be happy to refresh and test
the patch.
Thanks,
Alessandro
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Status of "Drop nested support for CPUs without NRIPS" patch
2025-12-14 16:08 Status of "Drop nested support for CPUs without NRIPS" patch Alessandro Ratti
@ 2025-12-19 18:44 ` Sean Christopherson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Sean Christopherson @ 2025-12-19 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alessandro Ratti; +Cc: Maciej S. Szmigiero, kvm
On Sun, Dec 14, 2025, Alessandro Ratti wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was investigating the TODO in svm_check_intercept() about advertising
> NRIPS unconditionally, and found an old patch by Sean Christopherson
> (with Maciej S. Szmigiero's sign-off) that simply requires NRIPS for
> nested virtualization rather than trying to emulate it.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/f0302382cf45d7a9527b4aebbfe694bbcfa7aff5.1651440202.git.maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com/
>
> Is there a reason this approach wasn't taken? Was there pushback on
> dropping support for pre-2009 CPUs, or did it just fall through the
> cracks?
Both Maxim[1] and Maciej lightly objected[2], and in the end dropping support
for CPUs without NRIPS barely moves the needle in terms of complexity.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/2327614a18d60a5e1b0d9d3aed754cccebce3117.camel@redhat.com
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/656aaf33-8c70-8b06-2cdc-fd2685a1348b@maciej.szmigiero.name
> If the approach is still acceptable, I'd be happy to refresh and test
> the patch.
Let's just leave things as-is for now. Dealing with NRIPS=0 CPUs was annoying
when fixing the soft-int reinjection issues, but it hasn't meaningfully impacted
maintenance in the ~3 years since (which isn't suprising give how little code is
saved by ripping it out).
Thank you for the offer though!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-12-19 18:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-12-14 16:08 Status of "Drop nested support for CPUs without NRIPS" patch Alessandro Ratti
2025-12-19 18:44 ` Sean Christopherson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox