[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210323094336.ab622e64594a79d54f55e3d7@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 09:43:36 +1300
From: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 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 Mon, 22 Mar 2021 20:11:57 +0100 Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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".
I don't see the commit msg being scary. EREMOVE might fail but virtual EPC code
can handle that. This is the reason to break out EREMOVE from original
sgx_free_epc_page(), so virtual EPC code can have its own logic of handling
EREMOVE failure.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists