Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220223062412.22334-1-chenyi.qiang@intel.com>
 <CALMp9eT50LjXYSwfWENjmfg=XxT4Bx3RzOYubKty8kr_APXCEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <88eb9a9a-fbe3-8e2c-02bd-4bdfc855b67f@intel.com> <6a839b88-392d-886d-836d-ca04cf700dce@intel.com>
 <7859e03f-10fa-dbc2-ed3c-5c09e62f9016@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <7859e03f-10fa-dbc2-ed3c-5c09e62f9016@redhat.com>
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Feb 2022 10:06:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CALMp9eQHKn=ApthER084vKGiQCMdVX7ztB5iLupBPdUY59WV_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: VMX: Enable Notify VM exit
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>,
        Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 7:13 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/25/22 16:12, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't like the idea of making things up without notifying userspace
> >>> that this is fictional. How is my customer running nested VMs supposed
> >>> to know that L2 didn't actually shutdown, but L0 killed it because the
> >>> notify window was exceeded? If this information isn't reported to
> >>> userspace, I have no way of getting the information to the customer.
> >>
> >> Then, maybe a dedicated software define VM exit for it instead of
> >> reusing triple fault?
> >>
> >
> > Second thought, we can even just return Notify VM exit to L1 to tell L2
> > causes Notify VM exit, even thought Notify VM exit is not exposed to L1.
>
> That might cause NULL pointer dereferences or other nasty occurrences.

Could we synthesize a machine check? I haven't looked in detail at the
MCE MSRs, but surely there must be room in there for Intel to reserve
some encodings for synthesized machine checks.