From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91B8F6E42E for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:02:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7DB0525CD2 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:01:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 2135325CAF for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:01:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E4D6B43740; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:01:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <a3b857c4-c8fa-c14c-a306-bb46974cd611@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:01:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, alexandre derumier <aderumier@odiso.com>, Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com> References: <20210810075511.37393-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> <71d62f433be447c0201e168f20934f351a210448.camel@odiso.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <71d62f433be447c0201e168f20934f351a210448.camel@odiso.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.853 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.959 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu] drop patch force-disabling smm X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 16:02:17 -0000 On 10/08/2021 15:47, alexandre derumier wrote: > Le mardi 10 août 2021 à 09:55 +0200, Wolfgang Bumiller a écrit : >> This drops debian/patches/pve/0005-PVE-Config-smm_available- >> false.patch >> (and renumbers the remaining patches) >> >> From what I could gather, this patch was originally added >> due to issues with old kernels. Now we have users which >> seem to run into issues *with* the patch. > yes indeed, this was old kernel with some old processors. > > > Just be carefull with live migration, I wonder if it's not breaking > migration it you just remove it like that. > (Maybe it could be better to remove it for qemu > 6.1, it should be > tested) > Did anybody tested this on live migration (on a system where it would actually toggle to true)? If it breaks that we'd need to fallback to the old "false" with a QEMU machine version check and we could only drop it then in PVE 8.0, so hopefully it Just Works™ to safe that hassle..