[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4fc32900-412d-fa10-520e-afa6caade33e@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 08:11:44 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, 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>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2-fix 1/1] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest
On 5/17/21 5:09 PM, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> After TDGETVEINFO #VE could happen in theory (e.g. through an NMI),
> although we don't expect it to happen because we don't expect NMIs to
> trigger #VEs. Another case where they could happen is if the #VE
> exception panics, but in this case there are no guarantees on anything
> anyways.
This implies: "we do not expect any NMI to do MMIO". Is that true? Why?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists