[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YL+tfGOMWEvDJTwc@google.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:48:44 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 08/32] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest
On Tue, Jun 08, 2021, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/26/21 11:01 AM, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_GUEST
> > +DEFINE_IDTENTRY(exc_virtualization_exception)
> > +{
> > + struct ve_info ve;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(), "entry code didn't wake RCU");
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Consume #VE info before re-enabling interrupts. It will be
> > + * re-enabled after executing the TDGETVEINFO TDCALL.
> > + */
> > + ret = tdg_get_ve_info(&ve);
>
> Is it safe to have *anything* before the tdg_get_ve_info()? For
> instance, say that RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN() triggers. Will anything in there
> do MMIO?
I doubt it's safe, anything that's doing printing has the potential to trigger
#VE. Even if we can prove it's safe for all possible paths, I can't think of a
reason to allow anything that's not absolutely necessary before retrieving the
#VE info.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists