[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4i5a7ERZ8n=_Ucffx1cLru7C08xz3cB6X0iG+4yLTUYQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 12:22:21 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
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>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2-fix 1/1] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 8:45 AM Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/18/2021 8:11 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Only drivers that are not supported in TDX anyways could do it (mainly
> watchdog drivers)
What about apei_{read,write}() for ACPI error handling? Those are
called in NMI to do MMIO accesses. It's not just watchdog drivers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists