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> <bcc83b3d-31fe-949a-6bbf-4615bb982f0c@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <bcc83b3d-31fe-949a-6bbf-4615bb982f0c@intel.com>
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Feb 2022 20:25:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CALMp9eT1NRudtVqPuHU8Y8LpFYWZsAB_MnE2BAbg5NY0jR823w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: VMX: Enable Notify VM exit
To:     Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.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 8:07 PM Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/25/2022 11:13 PM, Paolo Bonzini 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.
>
> IMO, a well written VMM (in L1) should handle it correctly.
>
> L0 KVM reports no Notify VM Exit support to L1, so L1 runs without
> setting Notify VM exit. If a L2 causes notify_vm_exit with
> invalid_vm_context, L0 just reflects it to L1. In L1's view, there is no
> support of Notify VM Exit from VMX MSR capability. Following L1 handler
> is possible:
>
> a)      if (notify_vm_exit available & notify_vm_exit enabled) {
>                 handle in b)
>         } else {
>                 report unexpected vm exit reason to userspace;
>         }
>
> b)      similar handler like we implement in KVM:
>         if (!vm_context_invalid)
>                 re-enter guest;
>         else
>                 report to userspace;
>
> c)      no Notify VM Exit related code (e.g. old KVM), it's treated as
> unsupported exit reason
>
> As long as it belongs to any case above, I think L1 can handle it
> correctly. Any nasty occurrence should be caused by incorrect handler in
> L1 VMM, in my opinion.

Please test some common hypervisors (e.g. ESXi and Hyper-V).