[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMkAt6o=G4U8iUkLxquT9E2JsyxVASOhNZcA9s7JFnrVPf_hfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:39:25 -0700
From: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Marc Orr <marcorr@...gle.com>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sergio Lopez <slp@...hat.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 v5 00/45] Add AMD Secure Nested Paging (SEV-SNP)
Hypervisor Support
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:26 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > But as Marc already pointed out, the kernel needs a plan B when an RMP
> > happens anyway due to some bug.
>
> I don't see why unexpected RMP #PF is a special snowflake that needs a different
> plan than literally every other type of unexpected #PF in the kernel.
When I started this thread I was not trying to say we *need* to do
something different for RMP faults, but that we *could* improve host
reliability by doing something. Since it is possible to special case
an RMP fault and prevent a panic I thought it was with discussing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists