On 7/23/2025 4:42 PM, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
On 7/23/2025 3:53 PM, Mathias Krause wrote:
I would leave it to Paolo to decide whether a compat property is needed
to disable the hypercall patching by default for newer machine, and keep
the old machine with old behavior (hypercall patching is enabled) b
On 7/23/2025 3:53 PM, Mathias Krause wrote:
I would leave it to Paolo to decide whether a compat property is needed
to disable the hypercall patching by default for newer machine, and keep
the old machine with old behavior (hypercall patching is enabled) by
default.
Bleh, I just noticed that the
On 23.07.25 08:54, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 7/23/2025 4:43 AM, Mathias Krause wrote:
>> KVM has a weird behaviour when a guest executes VMCALL on an AMD system
>> or VMMCALL on an Intel CPU. Both naturally generate an invalid opcode
>> exception (#UD) as they are just the wrong instruction for the CP
On 7/23/2025 4:43 AM, Mathias Krause wrote:
KVM has a weird behaviour when a guest executes VMCALL on an AMD system
or VMMCALL on an Intel CPU. Both naturally generate an invalid opcode
exception (#UD) as they are just the wrong instruction for the CPU
given. But instead of forwarding the excepti
KVM has a weird behaviour when a guest executes VMCALL on an AMD system
or VMMCALL on an Intel CPU. Both naturally generate an invalid opcode
exception (#UD) as they are just the wrong instruction for the CPU
given. But instead of forwarding the exception to the guest, KVM tries
to patch the guest
