lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Extend VMX's #AC handding
Date


> On Jan 31, 2020, at 1:04 PM, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 12:57:51PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2020, at 12:18 PM, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is essentially what I proposed a while back. KVM would allow enabling
>>> split-lock #AC in the guest if and only if SMT is disabled or the enable bit
>>> is per-thread, *or* the host is in "warn" mode (can live with split-lock #AC
>>> being randomly disabled/enabled) and userspace has communicated to KVM that
>>> it is pinning vCPUs.
>>
>> How about covering the actual sensible case: host is set to fatal? In this
>> mode, the guest gets split lock detection whether it wants it or not. How do
>> we communicate this to the guest?
>
> KVM doesn't advertise split-lock #AC to the guest and returns -EFAULT to the
> userspace VMM if the guest triggers a split-lock #AC.
>
> Effectively the same behavior as any other userspace process, just that KVM
> explicitly returns -EFAULT instead of the process getting a SIGBUS.


Which helps how if the guest is actually SLD-aware?

I suppose we could make the argument that, if an SLD-aware guest gets #AC at CPL0, it’s a bug, but it still seems rather nicer to forward the #AC to the guest instead of summarily killing it.

ISTM, on an SLD-fatal host with an SLD-aware guest, the host should tell the guest “hey, you may not do split locks — SLD is forced on” and the guest should somehow acknowledge it so that it sees the architectural behavior instead of something we made up. Hence my suggestion.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-31 22:34    [W:0.271 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site