[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <caa0b029-038c-cb59-6a69-70c84922fc6f@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:48:36 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 05/26] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest
On 2/12/21 1:47 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> What about adding a property to the TD, e.g. via a flag set during TD creation,
>> that controls whether unaccepted accesses cause #VE or are, for all intents and
>> purposes, fatal? That would allow Linux to pursue treating EPT #VEs for private
>> GPAs as fatal, but would give us a safety and not prevent others from utilizing
>> #VEs.
> That seems reasonable.
Ditto.
We first need to double check to see if the docs are right, though.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists