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: <20220614204730.3359543-1-seanjc@google.com> <20220614204730.3359543-6-seanjc@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220614204730.3359543-6-seanjc@google.com>
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Jul 2022 16:51:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CALMp9eSH1O8keAVxZzfdvV1vu0AJBhaXVUfkSgYgCPOoSB5=Jw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/21] KVM: nVMX: Prioritize TSS T-flag #DBs over
 Monitor Trap Flag
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.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, Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>,
        Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 1:47 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
>
> Service TSS T-flag #DBs prior to pending MTFs, as such #DBs are higher
> priority than MTF.  KVM itself doesn't emulate TSS #DBs, and any such

Is there a KVM erratum for that?

> exceptions injected from L1 will be handled by hardware (or morphed to
> a fault-like exception if injection fails), but theoretically userspace
> could pend a TSS T-flag #DB in conjunction with a pending MTF.
>
> Note, there's no known use case this fixes, it's purely to be technically
> correct with respect to Intel's SDM.

A test would be nice. :-)