[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a23077a5-777f-85fb-05fa-b91e21aca0e7@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:02:07 +0800
From: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: nVMX: Clear IDT vectoring on nested VM-Exit for
double/triple fault
On 4/7/2022 8:23 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Clear the IDT vectoring field in vmcs12 on next VM-Exit due to a double
> or triple fault. Per the SDM, a VM-Exit isn't considered to occur during
> event delivery if the exit is due to an intercepted double fault or a
> triple fault. Opportunistically move the default clearing (no event
> "pending") into the helper so that it's more obvious that KVM does indeed
> handle this case.
>
> Note, the double fault case is worded rather wierdly in the SDM:
>
> The original event results in a double-fault exception that causes the
> VM exit directly.
>
> Temporarily ignoring injected events, double faults can _only_ occur if
> an exception occurs while attempting to deliver a different exception,
> i.e. there's _always_ an original event. And for injected double fault,
> while there's no original event, injected events are never subject to
> interception.
>
> Presumably the SDM is calling out that a the vectoring info will be valid
> if a different exit occurs after a double fault, e.g. if a #PF occurs and
> is intercepted while vectoring #DF, then the vectoring info will show the
> double fault.
Wouldn't it be a tripe fault exit in this case?
> In other words, the clause can simply be read as:
>
> The VM exit is caused by a double-fault exception.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists