[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a2e01d7b-255d-bf64-f258-f3b7f211fc2a@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 20:11:57 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jarkko@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org,
dave.hansen@...el.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
haitao.huang@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/25] x86/sgx: Wipe out EREMOVE from
sgx_free_epc_page()
On 22/03/21 19:56, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> EREMOVE can only fail if there's a kernel or hardware bug (or a VMM bug if
> running as a guest). IME, nearly every kernel/KVM bug that I introduced that
> led to EREMOVE failure was also quite fatal to SGX, i.e. this is just the canary
> in the coal mine.
That was my recollection as well from previous threads but, to be fair
to Boris, the commit message is a lot more scary (and, which is what
triggers me, puts the blame on KVM). It just says "KVM does not track
how guest pages are used, which means that SGX virtualization use of
EREMOVE might fail".
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists