[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5d961c25-3dee-4a5d-4bba-a97d157a5a49@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:00:33 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.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>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] x86/tdx: Handle MWAIT, MONITOR and WBINVD
On 3/31/21 2:53 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>> Changes since v3:
>> * WARN user if SEAM does not disable MONITOR/MWAIT instruction.
> Why bother? There are a whole pile of features that are dictated by the TDX
> module spec. MONITOR/MWAIT is about as uninteresting as it gets, e.g. absolute
> worst case scenario is the guest kernel crashes, whereas a lot of spec violations
> would compromise the security of the guest.
So, what should we do? In the #VE handler:
switch (exit_reason) {
case SOMETHING_WE_HANDLE:
blah();
break;
...
default:
pr_err("unhadled #VE, exit reason: %d\n", exit_reason);
BUG_ON(1);
}
?
Is this the *ONLY* one of these, or are we going to have another twenty?
If this is the only one, we might as well give a nice string error
message. If there are twenty more, let's just dump the exit reason,
BUG() and move on with our lives.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists