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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] KVM: x86: Emulate triple fault shutdown if RSM
 emulation fails
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        syzbot+fb0b6a7e8713aeb0319c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
References: <20210609185619.992058-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20210609185619.992058-3-seanjc@google.com>
 <87eedayvkn.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <61e9ec9e-d4f5-bea5-942a-21c259278094@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jun 2021 15:29:35 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87eedayvkn.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/06/21 10:26, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> So should we actually have X86EMUL_CONTINUE when we queue
> KVM_REQ_TRIPLE_FAULT here?

Yes...

> (Initially, my comment was supposed to be 'why don't you add
> TRIPLE_FAULT to smm selftest?' but the above overshadows it)

... and a tenth patch to add a selftest would be nice to have indeed.

Paolo