[BUG][V6.1.0] Virtual Machines default to VT-x on and no option to turn off if not available

[BruA]

I have a machine which I cannot control the BIOS/UEFI.
VT-X is off and cannot turn on.

Current situation:
In VirtualBox 6.1.0, when creating/changing settings for a virtual machine.

1. VT-x defaults to ON
2. VT-x toggle is hidden
3. Cannot leave the Settings screen unless the inexistent VT-x toggle is turned off.

Expected results:
VT-x setting in the xml file should default to whether the host has VT-x.

Incriminatory photos
6.1.0 Doesn't have the option, so I'm stuck unless I install 6.0.14:

6.1.0 Doesn't have the option, so I'm stuck unless I install 6.0.14

VTx-no_option_error.PNG (29.45 KiB) Viewed 2892 times

6.0.14 has the checkbox enabled by default too. But I can disable it:

6.0.14 has the checkbox enabled by default too. But I can disable it.

VTx-to_disable.PNG (11.53 KiB) Viewed 2892 times

In 6.0.14 not only it becomes disabled, the checkbox becomes disabled too:

In 6.0.14 not only it becomes disabled, the checkbox becomes disabled too

VTx-disabled.PNG (12.71 KiB) Viewed 2892 times

[BruA]

Back to 6.1.0, the warning is gone because the XML was changed by 6.0.14 to turn off the inexistent option.

Back to 6.1.0, the warning is gone because the XML was changed by 6.0.14 to turn off the inexistent option.

VTx-no_option_fixed.PNG (14.33 KiB) Viewed 2890 times

[scottgus1]

'Tain't a bug, 6.1.x has removed the code that allowed 1-core 32-bit guests to run without VT-x (see I have a 64bit host, but can't install 64bit guests).

Now VT-x has to be on in the BIOS for any guests to run on 6.1.x. Non-VT-x users will have to stay with 6.0.x.

That said, 6.0.x will quite likely still be supported for some time. (They're still supporting 5.2.x). So this will give you time to build up that war chest for that new PC!

[BruA]

If that's the case, the warning should state that with VirtualBox 6.1.0, VT-x is mandatory and the host doesn't have VT-x available.
Still a bug, just doesn't remove functionality, then

[scottgus1]

VT-x is mandatory

This is stated in the changelog: https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Changelog-6.1#v0 , though admittedly not in those words:

Virtualization core: Drop recompiler, i.e. running VMs now needs a CPU supporting hardware virtualization

[BruA]

That's fine I believe but the program should corroborate it clearly and not just complain that the option is activated and the host doesn't support it.

[mpack]

"VT-x" is not mandatory, as that is the name of a feature found only on Intel chips. E.g. VT-x is not mandatory on an AMD-Ryzen. The changelog accurately indicates what has been removed.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this "bug report". Precisely what CLAIMED FEATURE are you saying does not work as claimed?

[BruA]

It has been shown it is not a bug.
Since 6.1.0, if intel CPU VT-x is mandatory and it appears this intel PC doesn't have VT-x on.

"VT-x" is not mandatory, as that is the name of a feature found only on Intel chips

Sorry. I oversimplified. When I typed "VT-x" , I meant the virtualization technology in the CPU, whatever the brand it is (intel, AMD, etc...).

In this case, VirtualBox should complain that VT-x/AMD-V is not available and such feature must be available for it to work.

[mpack]

In this case, VirtualBox should complain that VT-x/AMD-V is not available and such feature must be available for it to work.

AFAIK, that is precisely what it does. Indeed, I thought that was what brought you here. That's why I asked you to clarify.

[BruA]

In this case, VirtualBox should complain that VT-x/AMD-V is not available and such feature must be available for it to work.

AFAIK, that is precisely what it does.

I disagree on that statement.
If the text says (see the first image in the OP post):

It should be disabled in order to start the virtual system.

Then it is ordering me to turn it off. Instead, it should mention that it must be one and it off is no longer supported.
Makes sense?

[mpack]

Ah, I see. Your "bug" is some outdated text in an error dialog. Fine.

[BruA]

Well. It started as not being outdated text but when I was informed that the behaviour was by design, then I changed the scope to be the text which misled me.