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 08:46:23AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2021, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 08:23:01AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > +#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.
>
> No, NMI cannot happen here. The TDX-Module "blocks" NMIs until the #VE info is
> consumed by the guest.

'cute', might be useful to have that mentioned somewhere.

> > > 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.
>
> The MCE "architecture" for a TDX guest is rather stupid. The guest is required
> to keep CR4.MCE=1, but at least for TDX 1.0 the VMM is not allowed to inject #MC.
> So, for better or worse, #MC is a non-issue.
>
> #VE->#DB->#VE would be an issue, presumably this needs to be noinstr (or whatever
> it is that prevents #DBs on functions).

Ah, it is that already ofcourse, so yeah #DB can't happen here.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-08 20:11    [W:0.145 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site