Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: R86VVuV5TWHoH7XsLokun5P0u5v+8njqJuos50hY4yxYmtFWzNcHUDA4wLUck0WAHrk/5Vp0kb
 t5PYUaEOlhBw==
IronPort-SDR: XgokToR/vwQMpgN/NoXF/Xw+qqURHCxxdE2gq4ZFUzA3eUV+rTJTyC/f6+dVP3Qv+vqEtxheqj
 Vy+PvYpw02Ag==
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 08:23:01 -0800
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 05/26] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest
Message-ID: <20210208162301.GA365765@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <cover.1612563142.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <48a702f536ccf953eee5778023ed6d1a452f6dcf.1612563142.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <YCEQiDNSHTGBXBcj@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YCEQiDNSHTGBXBcj@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

> Which is supposedly then set up to avoid #VE during the syscall gap,
> yes? Which then results in #VE not having to be IST.

Yes that is currently true because all memory is pre-accepted.

If we ever do lazy accept we would need to make sure the memory accessed in
the syscall gap is already accepted, or move over to an IST.

> > +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_GUEST
> > +DEFINE_IDTENTRY(exc_virtualization_exception)
> > +{
> > +	struct ve_info ve;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(), "entry code didn't wake RCU");
> > +
> > +	/* Consume #VE info before re-enabling interrupts */
> 
> So what happens if NMI happens here, and triggers a nested #VE ?

Yes that's a gap. We should probably bail out and reexecute the original
instruction. The VE handler would need to set a flag for that.

Or alternatively the NMI always gets the VE information and puts
it on some internal stack, but that would seem clunkier.


-Andi