[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240325233528.GQ2357401@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:35:28 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@...el.com>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chen, Bo2" <chen.bo@...el.com>,
"sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>,
"isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"sean.j.christopherson@...el.com" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
"Yuan, Hang" <hang.yuan@...el.com>,
"isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com" <isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 059/130] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Don't zap private pages
for unsupported cases
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 11:21:17PM +0000,
"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-03-25 at 16:10 -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > > > My understanding is that Sean prefers to exit to userspace when KVM can't handle something,
> > > > versus
> > > > making up behavior that keeps known guests alive. So I would think we should change this patch
> > > > to
> > > > only be about not using the zapping roots optimization. Then a separate patch should exit to
> > > > userspace on attempt to use MTRRs. And we ignore the APIC one.
> > > >
> > > > This is trying to guess what maintainers would want here. I'm less sure what Paolo prefers.
> > >
> > > When we hit KVM_MSR_FILTER, the current implementation ignores it and makes it
> > > error to guest. Surely we should make it KVM_EXIT_X86_{RDMSR, WRMSR}, instead.
> > > It's aligns with the existing implementation(default VM and SW-protected) and
> > > more flexible.
> >
> > Something like this for "112/130 KVM: TDX: Handle TDX PV rdmsr/wrmsr hypercall"
> > Compile only tested at this point.
>
> Seems reasonable to me. Does QEMU configure a special set of MSRs to filter for TDX currently?
No for TDX at the moment. We need to add such logic.
--
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists