[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YSUwi2HraMFVanTP@zn.tnic>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 19:46:51 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter H Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/12] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:32:13AM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> Mainly chose it avoid future name conflicts with KVM (tdx) calls. But
What name conflicts with KVM calls? Please explain.
> It is required to handle #VE exceptions raised by unhandled MSR
> read/writes.
Example? Please elaborate.
> Ok. I can check it. But there is only one statement after this call.
> So it may not be very helpful.
Looking at die_addr(), that calls the die notifier too. So do you
even *have* to call it here with VEFSTR? As yo say, there's only one
statement after that call and box is dead in the water after that so why
even bother...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists