From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4374A6E660 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:24:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 38BC02B929 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:24:21 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id B83032B91E for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:24:20 +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 8D6A54363C; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:24:20 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:24:19 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Thomas Lamprecht Cc: Stefan Reiter , Proxmox VE development discussion , alexandre derumier Message-ID: <20210824092419.ztsmgdymgv6kagv4@olga.proxmox.com> References: <20210810075511.37393-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> <71d62f433be447c0201e168f20934f351a210448.camel@odiso.com> <77baa662-936d-a9aa-0b8c-d292c9acc724@proxmox.com> <509163c1-c60f-fb4e-f99a-10952719a108@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <509163c1-c60f-fb4e-f99a-10952719a108@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.624 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 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] applied: Re: [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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 09:24:21 -0000 On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:19:52AM +0200, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 24/08/2021 10:52, Stefan Reiter wrote: > > On 8/23/21 6:01 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > >> 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)? > > > > I've tested live-migration in both directions (with patch <-> current), > > Linux and Windows guests on a nested setup (but SMM is emulated in QEMU > > so nested shouldn't matter AFAIU). All worked without issue. > > > > I'm not sure if there is something specific a guest would need to do to > > exercise SMM support, but since we're turning it on, not off, I'm pretty > > sure that at least forward migration should always work. > > sounds sensible I think this mostly happens on boot, so perhaps migrating to a patched qemu, *soft*-rebooting the guest and then migrating back might be a problem.