[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200623161345.GQ4817@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:13:45 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
Mike Stunes <mstunes@...are.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Juergen Gross <JGross@...e.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP
from userspace)
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 09:03:56AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 6/23/20 8:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Isn't current #MC unconditionally fatal from kernel? But yes, I was
> > sorta aware people want that changed.
>
> Not unconditionally. copy_to_iter_mcsafe() is a good example of one
> thing we _can_ handle.
Urgh, I thought that stuff was still pending.
Anyway, the important thing is that it is fatal if we hit early NMI.
Which I think still holds.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists