[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a4766cb8-be69-03d3-6320-55c10bdc1672@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 15:44:18 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>,
Steve Rutherford <srutherford@...gle.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Venu Busireddy <venu.busireddy@...cle.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm: x86: Invoke hypercall when page encryption
status is changed
On 19/05/21 14:06, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> Now these buffers have very short life and only used for immediate I/O
> and then freed, so they may not be of major concern for SEV
> migration ?
Well, they are a concern because they do break migration. But it may be
indeed good enough to just have a WARN ("bad things may happen and you
get to keep both pieces") and not disable future migration.
A BUG must always be avoided unless you're sure that something *worse*
will happen in the future, e.g. a BUG is acceptable if you have detected
a use-after-free or a dangling pointer. This is not the case.
Paolo
> So disabling migration for failure of address lookup or mapping failures
> on such pages will really be an overkill.
> Might be in favor of Steve's thoughts above of doing a BUG() here
> instead.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists