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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1619458733.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <d6ca05720290060e909c1f4d12858f900f1be0e7.1619458733.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <CAPcyv4jGmhkrd+Zr4RNcZ5qfXkYO-416Bw2_idVbrgij41yvYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <0e577692-101e-38f7-ebe2-2e7222016a9f@linux.intel.com> <CAPcyv4jLMA=jehxdFi=A-xtjSRQ_v7XxSVYrZPAU3XKC39qWRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <43e0a5cc-721a-04f1-50b6-b1319da10bac@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <43e0a5cc-721a-04f1-50b6-b1319da10bac@intel.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 May 2021 08:50:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gEROpgvf+3Drgso1O6ENQ=2xBoKHqC6d4fWvdDNVSNjA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 16/32] x86/tdx: Handle MWAIT, MONITOR and WBINVD
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@kernel.org>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 8:45 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/11/21 8:37 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> I disagree. We already spent a lot of cycles on this. WBINVD makes never
> >> sense in current TDX and all the code will be disabled.
> > Why not just drop the patch if it continues to cause people to spend
> > cycles on it and it addresses a problem that will never happen?
>
> If someone calls WBINVD, we have a bug.  Not a little bug, either.  It
> probably means there's some horribly confused kernel code that's now
> facing broken cache coherency.  To me, it's a textbook place to use
> BUG_ON().
>
> This also doesn't "address" the problem, it just helps produce a more
> coherent warning message.  It's why we have OOPS messages in the page
> fault handler: it never makes any sense to dereference a NULL pointer,
> yet we have code to make debugging them easier.  It's well worth the ~20
> lines of code that this costs us for ease of debugging.

The 'default' case in this 'switch' prints the exit reason and faults,
can't that also trigger a backtrace that dumps the exception stack and
the faulting instruction? In other words shouldn't this just fail with
a common way to provide better debug on any unhandled #VE and not try
to continue running past something that "can't" happen?