Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-93167-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 16:25:53 -0800
In-Reply-To: <420cf8e8-88de-40b1-91a3-6660f7568494@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240228024147.41573-1-seanjc@google.com> <20240228024147.41573-9-seanjc@google.com>
 <2237d6b1-1c90-4acd-99e9-f051556dd6ac@intel.com> <ZeEOC0mo8C4GL708@google.com>
 <05449435-008c-4d51-b21f-03df1fa58e77@intel.com> <ZeXt6A_w4etYCYP7@google.com>
 <420cf8e8-88de-40b1-91a3-6660f7568494@intel.com>
Message-ID: <Zee4EVTp77S2GLRW@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] KVM: x86/mmu: WARN and skip MMIO cache on private,
 reserved page faults
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>, Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>, 
	Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>, Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>, 
	Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>, Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com>, 
	David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Wed, Mar 06, 2024, Kai Huang wrote:
> On 5/03/2024 4:51 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > In other words, KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT essentially communicates to userspace that
> > (a) userspace can likely fix whatever badness triggered the -EFAULT, and (b) that
> > KVM is in a state where fixing the underlying problem and resuming the guest is
> > safe, e.g. won't corrupt the guest (because KVM is in a half-baked state).
> > 
> 
> Sure.  One small issue might be that, in a later code check, we actually
> return KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT when private fault hits RET_PF_EMULATION -- see
> your patch:
> 
> [PATCH 01/16] KVM: x86/mmu: Exit to userspace with -EFAULT if private fault
> hits emulation
> 
> So here if we just return -EFAULT w/o reporting KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT when
> private+reserved is hit, it seems there's a little bit inconsistency here.

It's intentionally inconsistent.  -EFAULT without KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT is
essentially KVM saying "something bad happened, and it can't be fixed", whereas
exiting with KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT says "there's an issue, but you may be able
to resolve it".

The ABI is a bit messy, e.g. in some ways it would be cleaner if KVM returned '0'.
But doing that in a backwards compatible way would have required a rather ugly
opt-in, and it would also make it more tedious to extend KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT,
e.g. pairing it with -EHWPOISON didn't require any new flags.