[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cc7ee242-31dd-5df5-7685-219b38b6f499@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 13:18:23 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, david@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
thomas.lendacky@....com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/3] x86/tdx: Clarify RIP adjustments in #VE handler
On 5/26/22 13:13, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> I'm not super happy with how this comment ended up. First, let's put
>> the comment next to the code to which it applies, like:
>>
>> /*
>> * ve->instr_len is not defined for EPT violations. For those,
>> * the kernel must decode instructions manually and should not
>> * be using this function.
>> */
>> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ve->exit_reason == EXIT_REASON_EPT_VIOLATION))
>> return 0;
>>
>> /*
>> * Assume that the #VE occurred due to instruction execution.
>> */
>> return ve->instr_len;
> Would it be helpful if the function has a whitelist of exit resons where
> using ve->instr_len is safe? WARN_ONCE() and return 0 otherwise.
Maybe. I was hoping to avoid mostly duplicating the
virt_exception_kernel() switch().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists