Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56ACCC433EF for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 16:55:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241107AbhLMQzJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:55:09 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47176 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241082AbhLMQy7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:54:59 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x102d.google.com (mail-pj1-x102d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E395C0617A2 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:54:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x102d.google.com with SMTP id iq11so12283129pjb.3 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:54:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=AA3cmGxjX7rQ7Nx4YLnLHex97OOC6jIUqWvPUCK4d4I=; b=iRjD5da3CL6RA/latOqqXOupbElJzpRlpjwTJ8TqDONfl5WIJDZprRk5SK29fgOSkY N9hnANhBHCZMe/K+03c1NveVYvuszrsdJe8Cbq0m4EtExXWlaCP6TFvVryopRMN+Gt2Q WW1fsRfVwiK2FDt7ynDhuyeQevMJ9awzfLQtM4ecGk1C7jN0vMMsXBCtykgpWHC45kdm 1cuQ75hkRoxMYxbJyvnhXXHki5jkQjP9EOTulzyrk2VrDclrhd5tXbiY7FO24+SqKm9D EXlTZtDyvrREtrDFhx7DtXnZHgmw4EZMZtwORpWerh3eBwi8HhpDTRQYQBDzwlXcwX93 e0Kw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=AA3cmGxjX7rQ7Nx4YLnLHex97OOC6jIUqWvPUCK4d4I=; b=xdZ7cWe3EKVJ0zR0QH9r6NjsMaDS/QD1qjIfbbqC4o3jPsdL/ottIBDaGUzUATNeFv LazSUXwLpTFRYcWmRvvxbZZuo6BwIBh+wBQFpfXsCae2zV/b5Y4OFm4GYMOC/z/baYIW 8XklWzkIz5SSiv11VHWzDyBoRywnhpWwSGB9/tASiT0A/vL0Ddx0sHtTlbDRFQ2ZTLDT 3ejATcluP7A+k2DUTKGnPvYo+rgpALO9Jwhd3pDmwORIs7oD4bNgHVrQ8/m6HDJhaUQ/ aTRpVH9vl8Mw2hhllTGVpV2J0UjmJ0LOjo7HQibgCVzZ7WuHturI1fVo7ypK5TetkDtV 5bwg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532xb6zkQGdUTVksB/7c11iQaU6Suaufp6NIWG0OREp6gE2Noop1 8iVWqWb453z3Hw+uzOEPhPRBYltZqFZA2Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyTgegmMEhcIYWAwl3DrUFQNFLkahj1X0m9a7EeXwVZUJuv36hfE0mmLT4nhioZz35NV2uMCg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:34b:: with SMTP id fh11mr45254545pjb.14.1639414497559; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:54:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com (157.214.185.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.185.214.157]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l9sm13637501pfu.55.2021.12.13.08.54.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:54:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 16:54:53 +0000 From: Sean Christopherson To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Maxim Levitsky , Lai Jiangshan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Joerg Roedel , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Xiao Guangrong Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/15] KVM: X86: Ensure pae_root to be reconstructed for shadow paging if the guest PDPTEs is changed Message-ID: References: <20211108124407.12187-1-jiangshanlai@gmail.com> <20211111144634.88972-1-jiangshanlai@gmail.com> <11219bdb-669c-cf6f-2a70-f4e5f909a2ad@redhat.com> <42701fedbe10acf164ec56818b941061be6ffd4e.camel@redhat.com> <56281d07-de85-69be-8855-71e7219e0227@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56281d07-de85-69be-8855-71e7219e0227@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 11, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 12/11/21 07:56, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > This apparently wasn't validated against a simple use case, let > > > alone against things like migration with nested VMs, multliple L2s, > > > etc... > > > > I did validate the *SREGS2* against all the cases I could (like > > migration, EPT/NPT disabled/etc. I even started testing SMM to see > > how it affects PDPTRs, and patched seabios to use PAE paging. I still > > could have missed something. > > Don't worry, I think Sean was talking about patch 16 and specifically > digging at me (who deserved it completely). Yes, patch 16. My goal wasn't to dig at anyone, I just wanted to dramatically emphasize how ridiculousy fragile and complex the PDPTR crud is due to the number of edge cases.