[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALMp9eRRUY6a_QzbG-rHoZi5zc1YWHLk243=V2VBSQa=HL-Dpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:22:24 -0800
From: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
linmiaohe <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: nVMX: set rflags to specify success in
handle_invvpid() default case
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 1:54 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 23/01/20 10:45, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >>> SDM says that "If an
> >>> unsupported INVVPID type is specified, the instruction fails." and this
> >>> is similar to INVEPT and I decided to check what handle_invept()
> >>> does. Well, it does BUG_ON().
> >>>
> >>> Are we doing the right thing in any of these cases?
> >>
> >> Yes, both INVEPT and INVVPID catch this earlier.
> >>
> >> So I'm leaning towards not applying Miaohe's patch.
> >
> > Well, we may at least want to converge on BUG_ON() for both
> > handle_invvpid()/handle_invept(), there's no need for them to differ.
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE + nested_vmx_failValid would probably be better, if we
> really want to change this.
>
> Paolo
In both cases, something is seriously wrong. The only plausible
explanations are compiler error or hardware failure. It would be nice
to handle *all* such failures with a KVM_INTERNAL_ERROR exit to
userspace. (I'm also thinking of situations like getting a VM-exit for
INIT.)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists