[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55fd7fbe-4d36-1c1d-532b-bfa876542cd7@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 10:42:40 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 16/32] x86/tdx: Handle MWAIT, MONITOR and WBINVD
On 5/11/21 10:06 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> How do these end up in practice? Do they still say "general protection
>> fault..."?
>
> Yes, but there's a #VE specific message before it that prints the exit
> reason.
>
>> Isn't that really mean for anyone that goes trying to figure out what
>> caused these? If they see a "general protection fault" from WBINVD and
>> go digging in the SDM for how a #GP can come from WBINVD, won't they be
>> sorely disappointed?
>
> They'll see both the message and also that it isn't a true #VE in the
> backtrace.
Is there a good reason for the enduring "general protection fault..."
message other than an aversion to refactoring the code?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists