Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Dec 2021 12:29:51 +0100 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 04/26] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest |
| |
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 02:31:12AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 08:45:40PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > What happens if the NMI handler triggers a #VE after all? Or where is it > > enforced that TDX guests should set panic_on_oops? > > Kernel will handle the #VE normally inside NMI handler. (We tested it once > again, just in case.) > > The critical part is that #VE must not be triggered in NMI entry code, > before kernel is ready to handle nested NMIs.
Well, I can't read that in the commit message, maybe it needs expanding on that aspect?
What I read is:
"Interrupts, including NMIs, are blocked by the hardware starting with #VE delivery until TDGETVEINFO is called."
but this simply means that *if* you get a #VE anywhere, NMIs are masked until TDGETVEINFO.
If you get a #VE during the NMI entry code, then you're toast...
> #VE cannot possibly happen there: no #VE-inducing instructions, code and > data are in guest private memory.
Right, that. So we cannot get a #VE there.
> VMM can remove private memory from under us, but access to unaccepted (or > missing) private memory leads to VM termination, not to #VE.
And that can't trigger a #VE either.
So I'm confused...
It sounds like you wanna say: no #VEs should happen during the NMI entry code because of <raisins> and in order to prevent those, we don't use insns causing #VE, etc. And private pages removed by the VM will simply terminate the guest.
So what's up?
> tdx_virt_exception_user()/tdx_virt_exception_kernel() will be populated by > following patches. The patch adds generic infrastructure for #VE handling.
Yeah, you either need to state that somewhere or keep changing those functions as they evolve in the patchset. As it is, it just confuses reviewers.
Thx.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
| |