lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC v1 05/26] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 08:23:01AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Which is supposedly then set up to avoid #VE during the syscall gap,
> > yes? Which then results in #VE not having to be IST.
>
> Yes that is currently true because all memory is pre-accepted.
>
> If we ever do lazy accept we would need to make sure the memory accessed in
> the syscall gap is already accepted, or move over to an IST.

I think we're going to mandate the entry text/data will have to be
pre-accepted to avoid IST. ISTs really are crap.

> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_GUEST
> > > +DEFINE_IDTENTRY(exc_virtualization_exception)
> > > +{
> > > + struct ve_info ve;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(), "entry code didn't wake RCU");
> > > +
> > > + /* Consume #VE info before re-enabling interrupts */
> >
> > So what happens if NMI happens here, and triggers a nested #VE ?
>
> Yes that's a gap. We should probably bail out and reexecute the original
> instruction. The VE handler would need to set a flag for that.
>
> Or alternatively the NMI always gets the VE information and puts
> it on some internal stack, but that would seem clunkier.

The same is possible with MCE and #DB I imagine.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-08 19:40    [W:0.180 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site