[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 17:14:40 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>,
Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/21] KVM: nVMX: Prioritize TSS T-flag #DBs over
Monitor Trap Flag
On Wed, Jul 06, 2022, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 1:47 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Service TSS T-flag #DBs prior to pending MTFs, as such #DBs are higher
> > priority than MTF. KVM itself doesn't emulate TSS #DBs, and any such
>
> Is there a KVM erratum for that?
Nope, just this hilarious TODO:
/*
* TODO: What about debug traps on tss switch?
* Are we supposed to inject them and update dr6?
*/
> > exceptions injected from L1 will be handled by hardware (or morphed to
> > a fault-like exception if injection fails), but theoretically userspace
> > could pend a TSS T-flag #DB in conjunction with a pending MTF.
> >
> > Note, there's no known use case this fixes, it's purely to be technically
> > correct with respect to Intel's SDM.
>
> A test would be nice. :-)
LOL, yeah, but ensuring userspace-injected TSS T-bit #DBs work isn't exactly on
my list of top 100 things to look at.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists