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 1D6966E66E for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:29:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 051352B9D7 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:28:46 +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 944682B9C9 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:28:45 +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 6B46442E49; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:28:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:28:43 +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: Wolfgang Bumiller Cc: Stefan Reiter , Proxmox VE development discussion , alexandre derumier 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> <20210824092419.ztsmgdymgv6kagv4@olga.proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20210824092419.ztsmgdymgv6kagv4@olga.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.375 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 -2.023 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] 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 09:29:16 -0000 On 24/08/2021 11:24, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:19:52AM +0200, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> On 24/08/2021 10:52, Stefan Reiter wrote: >>> 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. > But the backmigration from new -> old is not supported by us anyway, so even if that would cause a problem it's a non issue.