On 2013-02-27 12:20, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:04:50AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Is the nested-related state already saved on AMD, Jörg? If not, adding
>> this one would not make things worse at least. Still, missing user space
>> save/restore already breaks reset, not only
On 2013-02-27 12:17, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 03:08:53PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> From: Jan Kiszka
>
>> @@ -2390,6 +2390,21 @@ static int nested_svm_vmexit(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
>> return 0;
>> }
>> +static bool nested_svm_handle_init_received(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:04:50AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Is the nested-related state already saved on AMD, Jörg? If not, adding
> this one would not make things worse at least. Still, missing user space
> save/restore already breaks reset, not only migration (dunno if this is
> better on AMD).
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 03:08:53PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> From: Jan Kiszka
> @@ -2390,6 +2390,21 @@ static int nested_svm_vmexit(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
> return 0;
> }
> +static bool nested_svm_handle_init_received(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu)
On 2013-02-25 09:00, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013, Jan Kiszka wrote about "[PATCH] KVM: nSVM/nVMX:
> Implement vmexit on INIT assertion":
>> From: Jan Kiszka
>>
>> On Intel, raising INIT causing an unconditional vmexit. On AMD, this is
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013, Jan Kiszka wrote about "[PATCH] KVM: nSVM/nVMX: Implement
vmexit on INIT assertion":
> From: Jan Kiszka
>
> On Intel, raising INIT causing an unconditional vmexit. On AMD, this is
> controlled by the interception mask.
Hi,
I never tried to close
From: Jan Kiszka
On Intel, raising INIT causing an unconditional vmexit. On AMD, this is
controlled by the interception mask.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka
---
Sorry for double-posting, failed to CC the list on first try.
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |1 +
arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h
