On Wed, Jun 23, 2021, Sean Christopherson wrote: > And I believe this hackery is necessary only because nested_svm_vmexit() isn't > following the architcture in the first place. I.e. using vmcb01 to restore > host state is flat out wrong. Ah, that's not true, using vmcb01 is allowed by "may store some or all host state in hidden on-chip memory". >From a performance perspective, I do like the SMI/RSM shenanigans. I'm not totally opposed to the trickery since I think it will break a guest if and only if the L1 guest is also violating the APM. And we're not fudging the spec thaat much :-)
