Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Apr 2020 11:32:35 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] x86/kvm: Disable KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS |
| |
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 09:48:02PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I’m fine with the flow being different. do_machine_check() could > have entirely different logic to decide the error in PV.
Nope, do_machine_check() is already as ugly as it gets. I don't want any more crap in it.
> But I think we should reuse the overall flow: kernel gets #MC with > RIP pointing to the offending instruction. If there’s an extable > entry that can handle memory failure, handle it. If it’s a user > access, handle it. If it’s an unrecoverable error because it was a > non-extable kernel access, oops or panic. > > The actual PV part could be extremely simple: the host just needs to > tell the guest “this #MC is due to memory failure at this guest > physical address”. No banks, no DIMM slot, no rendezvous crap > (LMCE), no other nonsense. It would be nifty if the host also told the > guest what the guest virtual address was if the host knows it.
It better be a whole different path and a whole different vector. If you wanna keep it simple and apart from all of the other nonsense, then you can just as well use a completely different vector.
Thx.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
| |