> "Having to use HyperV" is not actually anything nefarious as the other comment seems to imply. You can't have two type 1 hypervisors running cooperatively on

> "Having to use HyperV" is not actually anything nefarious as the other comment seems to imply. You can't have two type 1 hypervisors running cooperatively on the bare metal and you cant implement your type 2 hypervisor hooks if you have a type 1 hypervisor running. The nefarious part is that Windows enables Hyper-V even if you don't actually use Hyper-V VMs and never will. KVM doesn't take exclusive control of VMX until you _actually_ run a KVM VM. By the way, the distinction between type 1 / 2 is purely academic at this point: there is no definition where KVM is a type 1 hypervisor and VirtualBox isn't, as they are _literally_ the same conceptually-wise: both are a kernel module that implements a VMX manager/root. Same on Windows. The only remaining type 2 hypervisor these days is kqemu which can still work in binary translation mode (and therefore can work even without access to VMX).