[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <42f6b603-7c21-28fa-b6ec-e53268aa6ff7@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 10:53:43 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.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 6/8/21 10:48 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 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.
What about tracing? Can I plop a kprobe in here or turn on ftrace?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists