[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7a453c41-37ca-6fdf-90e6-333c35fe9489@suse.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 17:50:44 +0200
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] xen/pv: allow pmu msr accesses to cause GP
On 04.10.2022 17:22, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 04.10.22 12:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.10.2022 10:43, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> Today pmu_msr_read() and pmu_msr_write() fall back to the safe variants
>>> of read/write MSR in case the MSR access isn't emulated via Xen. Allow
>>> the caller to select the potentially faulting variant by passing NULL
>>> for the error pointer.
>>>
>>> Restructure the code to make it more readable.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
>>
>> I think the title (and to some degree also the description) is misleading:
>> The property we care about here isn't whether an MSR access would raise
>> #GP (we can't control that), but whether that #GP would be recovered from.
>
> Would you be fine with adding "fatal" or "visible"?
That would help, but "allow" also is a little odd when it comes to
(likely) crashing the system.
Jan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists