On 27/02/20 01:22, Oliver Upton wrote: > Are there any strong opinions about how the newly introduced nested > state should be handled across live migrations? When applying this > patch set internally I realized live migration would be busted in the > case of a kernel rollback (i.e. a kernel with this patchset emits the > nested state, kernel w/o receives it + refuses). Only if you use MTF + emulation. In this case it's a pure bugfix so it's okay to break backwards migration. If it's really a new feature, it should support KVM_ENABLE_CAP to enable it. Paolo > Easy fix is to only turn on the feature once it is rollback-proof, but > I wonder if there is any room for improvement on this topic..
