[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] x86/kvm: Disable KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS

> On Apr 7, 2020, at 3:07 PM, Paolo Bonzini <> wrote:
> On 07/04/20 23:41, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> 2. Access to bad memory results in #MC. Sure, #MC is a turd, but
>> it’s an *architectural* turd. By all means, have a nice simple PV
>> mechanism to tell the #MC code exactly what went wrong, but keep the
>> overall flow the same as in the native case.
>> I think I like #2 much better. It has another nice effect: a good
>> implementation will serve as a way to exercise the #MC code without
>> needing to muck with EINJ or with whatever magic Tony uses. The
>> average kernel developer does not have access to a box with testable
>> memory failure reporting.
> I prefer #VE, but I can see how #MC has some appeal. However, #VE has a
> mechanism to avoid reentrancy, unlike #MC. How would that be better
> than the current mess with an NMI happening in the first few
> instructions of the #PF handler?

It has to be an IST vector due to the possibility of hitting a memory failure right after SYSCALL. I imagine that making #VE use IST would be unfortunate.

I think #MC has a mechanism to prevent reentrancy to a limited extent. How does #VE avoid reentrancy?
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-08 00:30    [W:0.089 / U:3.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site