[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210514093342.GA21656@ashkalra_ubuntu_server>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 09:33:42 +0000
From: Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, seanjc@...gle.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
joro@...tes.org, thomas.lendacky@....com, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
srutherford@...gle.com, venu.busireddy@...cle.com,
brijesh.singh@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm: x86: Invoke hypercall when page encryption
status is changed
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 11:24:03AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 10:03:18AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Ok, so explain to me how this looks from the submitter standpoint: he reads
> > your review of his patch, he acknowledges your point with "Yes, it makes
> > sense to signal it with a WARN or so", and still is treated as shit.
>
> How is me asking about the user experience of it all, treating him like
> shit?!
>
> How should I have asked this so that it is not making you think I'm
> treating him like shit?
>
> Because treating someone like shit is not in my goals.
>
As i mentioned in my previous reply, this has to be treated as a fatal
error from the user point of view, and the kernel needs to inform the
userspace VMM to block/stop migration as response to this failure.
Thanks,
Ashish
Powered by blists - more mailing lists