[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b688b4ad-5a64-d2df-6dd8-e23fac75a6b9@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 07:45:00 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, x86@...nel.org
Cc: hpa@...or.com, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 41/62] x86/sev-es: Handle MSR events
On 2/11/20 5:52 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> Implement a handler for #VC exceptions caused by RDMSR/WRMSR
> instructions.
As a general comment on all of these event handlers: Why do we bother
having the hypercalls in the interrupt handler as opposed to just
calling them directly. What you have is:
wrmsr()
-> #VC exception
hcall()
But we could make our rd/wrmsr() wrappers just do:
if (running_on_sev_es())
hcall(HCALL_MSR_WHATEVER...)
else
wrmsr()
and then we don't have any of the nastiness of exception handling.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists