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;
Date:   Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:29:18 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>,
        Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@intel.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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: VMX: Enable Notify VM exit
Message-ID: <Yhkf/qJ1wpfbA3Fc@google.com>
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>
 <CALMp9eQHKn=ApthER084vKGiQCMdVX7ztB5iLupBPdUY59WV_A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eQHKn=ApthER084vKGiQCMdVX7ztB5iLupBPdUY59WV_A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022, Jim Mattson wrote:
> 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.

I don't think we have any choice but to synthesize SHUTDOWN until we get more
details on the exact semantics of VM_CONTEXT_INVALID.  E.g. if GUEST_EFER or any
other critical guest field is corrupted, attempting to re-enter the guest, even
to (attempt to) inject a machine check, is risking undefined behavior in the guest.