Only specialized systems have the ability to change the state of the display in hardware. General computer systems don’t have this available, so they use what is available to alter the display behavior - graphics card per channel LUTs. The technical advantage is that per channel LUTs are more detailed than 3D Luts, so a display can be made to behave in a more easily/accurately characterized way. The practical aspect is that (mainly for historical reasons) typical ICC based color management systems assume relative colorimetric color conversions, so things like white point and brightness are not able to be set by the color management pipeline. So the a mechanism available for this that doesn’t rely on being able to computer control a displays settings is per channel graphic card LUTs.
A further point of confusion is that the term “calibration” has many meanings. I’ve explained the desktop/ICC profile system meaning above, but in other contexts (i.e. film & video) it has a different meaning. What it means there is configuring the display hardware to emulate a particular standard colorspace. For a desktop system such a calibration approach is generally a disadvantage, because it is much less flexible than a profiling approach. Using profiling your aim should be to maximize the native gamut of the display rather than restrict it to a single colorspace, so that the color management system can display any number of source (i.e. emulated) colorspaces simultaneously.
You can’t assume anything about how a VM handles display values, per channel LUTs, instrument access or any number of other things that may have an impact on setting up a color managed system. You are pretty much on your own in investigating and verifying that things will work as you hope they will.