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;
Date:   Thu, 10 Jun 2021 15:28:04 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] KVM: x86: Emulate triple fault shutdown if RSM
 emulation fails
Message-ID: <YMIvhAzbbQuWT685@google.com>
References: <20210609185619.992058-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20210609185619.992058-3-seanjc@google.com>
 <87eedayvkn.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
 <61e9ec9e-d4f5-bea5-942a-21c259278094@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <61e9ec9e-d4f5-bea5-942a-21c259278094@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I've been remiss in writing/modifying tests, I'll prioritize that once I've
dug myself out of the rabbit holes I wandered into via the vCPU RESET/INIT series.