[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200623114324.GA14101@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:43:24 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
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>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP
from userspace)
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:14:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:11:07PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > The v3 patchset implements an unconditional shift of the #VC IST entry
> > in the NMI handler, before it can trigger a #VC exception.
>
> Going by that other thread -- where you said that any memory access can
> trigger a #VC, there just isn't such a guarantee.
As I wrote in the other mail, this can only happen when SNP gets enabled
(which is follow-on work to this) and is handled by a stack recursion
check in the #VC handler.
The reason I mentioned the #VC-anywhere case is to make it more clear
why #VC needs an IST handler.
Regards,
Joerg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists