On 11/28/18 5:02 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 02:15:39PM -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 11/27/18 12:05 PM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 18:38 -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
>> [...]
>>> +static bool
>>> +virQEMUCapsKVMIsNested(void)
>>> +{
>>> + VIR_AUTOFREE(char *) kConfig = NULL;
>>> +
>>> + /* Intel, AMD, and s390 related checks */
>>> + if ((kConfig = virKModConfig()) &&
>>> + (strstr(kConfig, "kvm_intel nested=1") ||
>>> + strstr(kConfig, "kvm_amd nested=1") ||
>>> + strstr(kConfig, "kvm nested=1")))
>>> + return true;
>>> + return false;
>>> +}
>>
>> I might be doing it wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've enabled nested
>> virtualization properly on my laptop given that I can successfully
>> run 'modprobe kvm_intel' inside the L1 guest, and yet I get
>>
>> # modprobe -c | grep -c nested=1
>> 0
>>
>> both in the L0 host and the L1 guest, so this check doesn't seem
>> accurate to me.
>>
>> Oh, wait, I get it now: 'modprobe -c' doesn't dump the *current*
host
>> configuration, but the *static* one! So if you enable nested KVM
>> support by doing
>>
>> # modprobe -r kvm_intel
>> # modprobe kvm_intel nested=1
>>
>> like I did, then the check above will not report it as enabled even
>> though it is; conversely, if you drop the appropriate config snippet
>> in /etc/modprobe.d/ but don't reload the module it will report it as
>> enabled even though it's not!
>
> Ugh, sigh... Yep, I was thinking primarily the static config option
> since we had helpers to read. Of course that won't be enough. Joy, more
> code to probe... Maybe it is easier to just say - clear your
> capabilities cache if you alter that particular kernel value.
Surely its already easier just to ask the kernel for the live status
$ cat /sys/module/kvm_intel/parameters/nested
1
My commentary was more towards I was hoping to "reuse" the exising kmod
helpers ;-) before I had thought about or written any code to read the
live data.
The other "annoying" part is that you have "1" in your output and I
have
"Y" or "N". So much for "consistency".
John