Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 8 Apr 2020 11:32:35 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/kvm: Disable KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS
Message-ID: <20200408093235.GB24663@zn.tnic>
References: <877dyqkj3h.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <F2BD5266-A9E5-41C8-AC64-CC33EB401B37@amacapital.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <F2BD5266-A9E5-41C8-AC64-CC33EB401B37@amacapital.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 09:48:02PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I’m fine with the flow being different. do_machine_check() could
> have entirely different logic to decide the error in PV.

Nope, do_machine_check() is already as ugly as it gets. I don't want any
more crap in it.

> But I think we should reuse the overall flow: kernel gets #MC with
> RIP pointing to the offending instruction. If there’s an extable
> entry that can handle memory failure, handle it. If it’s a user
> access, handle it. If it’s an unrecoverable error because it was a
> non-extable kernel access, oops or panic.
>
> The actual PV part could be extremely simple: the host just needs to
> tell the guest “this #MC is due to memory failure at this guest
> physical address”. No banks, no DIMM slot, no rendezvous crap
> (LMCE), no other nonsense. It would be nifty if the host also told the
> guest what the guest virtual address was if the host knows it.

It better be a whole different path and a whole different vector. If you
wanna keep it simple and apart from all of the other nonsense, then you
can just as well use a completely different vector.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette