[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUd2UO=+JOb_008mGbPdfW5YJgQyw5H7D_CxOgaWv=gxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 11:13:34 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
jan.setjeeilers@...cle.com, Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>,
Jonathan Adams <jwadams@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC KVM 06/27] KVM: x86: Exit KVM isolation on IRQ entry
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:28 AM Alexandre Chartre
<alexandre.chartre@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/13/19 5:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:39 AM Alexandre Chartre
> > <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>
> >>
> >> Next commits will change most of KVM #VMExit handlers to run
> >> in KVM isolated address space. Any interrupt handler raised
> >> during execution in KVM address space needs to switch back
> >> to host address space.
> >>
> >> This patch makes sure that IRQ handlers will run in full
> >> host address space instead of KVM isolated address space.
> >
> > IMO this needs to be somewhere a lot more central. What about NMI and
> > MCE? Or async page faults? Or any other entry?
> >
>
> Actually, I am not sure this is effectively useful because the IRQ
> handler is probably faulting before it tries to exit isolation, so
> the isolation exit will be done by the kvm page fault handler. I need
> to check that.
>
The whole idea of having #PF exit with a different CR3 than was loaded
on entry seems questionable to me. I'd be a lot more comfortable with
the whole idea if a page fault due to accessing the wrong data was an
OOPS and the code instead just did the right thing directly.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists