[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <945500f6-27e1-ed81-2b7d-c709cb1d4b33@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 19:13:02 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: X86: Fix tlb flush for tdp in
kvm_invalidate_pcid()
On 21/10/21 16:52, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> I think the EPT violation happens*after* the cr3 write. So the instruction to be
>> emulated is not "cr3 write". The emulation will queue fault into guest though,
>> recursive EPT violation happens since the cr3 exceeds maxphyaddr limit.
> Doh, you're correct. I think my mind wandered into thinking about what would
> happen with PDPTRs and forgot to get back to normal MOV CR3.
>
> So yeah, the only way to correctly handle this would be to intercept CR3 loads.
> I'm guessing that would have a noticeable impact on guest performance.
Ouch... yeah, allow_smaller_maxphyaddr already has bad performance, but
intercepting CR3 loads would be another kind of slow.
Paolo
> Paolo, I'll leave this one for you to decide, we have pretty much written off
> allow_smaller_maxphyaddr:-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists