On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 01:35:27PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 10:17:04AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > > Note, TDX doesn't allow injection exceptions, so reflecting a #PF back
> > > > into the guest is not an option.
> > >
> > > Not even #MC? So sad
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 10:17:04AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
[..]
> > > Note, TDX doesn't allow injection exceptions, so reflecting a #PF back
> > > into the guest is not an option.
> >
> > Not even #MC? So sad :-)
>
> Heh, #MC isn't allowed either, yet...
If #MC is not allowd, logic
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 06:21:48PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Sean Christopherson (sean.j.christopher...@intel.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 06:39:56PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > > Sean Christopherson writes:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:24:54PM +0200,
* Sean Christopherson (sean.j.christopher...@intel.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 06:39:56PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > Sean Christopherson writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:24:54PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > >> Vivek Goyal writes:
> > >> > So you will have to
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 06:39:56PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:24:54PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> Vivek Goyal writes:
> >> > So you will have to report token (along with -EFAULT) to user space. So
> >> > this
> >> > is
Sean Christopherson writes:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:24:54PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal writes:
>> > So you will have to report token (along with -EFAULT) to user space. So
>> > this
>> > is basically the 3rd proposal which is extension of kvm API and will
>> > report
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 09:12:00AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:24:54PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > Vivek Goyal writes:
> > > So you will have to report token (along with -EFAULT) to user space. So
> > > this
> > > is basically the 3rd proposal which is
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:24:54PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Vivek Goyal writes:
> > So you will have to report token (along with -EFAULT) to user space. So this
> > is basically the 3rd proposal which is extension of kvm API and will
> > report say HVA/GFN also to user space along with
Vivek Goyal writes:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 04:50:44PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 04:05:16PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> >> Vivek Goyal writes:
>> >>
>> >> > A. Just exit to user space with -EFAULT (using kvm request) and
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 04:50:44PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Vivek Goyal writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 04:05:16PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> Vivek Goyal writes:
> >>
> >> > A. Just exit to user space with -EFAULT (using kvm request) and don't
> >> >wait for the
Vivek Goyal writes:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 04:05:16PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal writes:
>>
>> > A. Just exit to user space with -EFAULT (using kvm request) and don't
>> >wait for the accessing task to run on vcpu again.
>>
>> What if we also save the required
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 04:05:16PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Vivek Goyal writes:
>
> > A. Just exit to user space with -EFAULT (using kvm request) and don't
> >wait for the accessing task to run on vcpu again.
>
> What if we also save the required information (RIP, GFN, ...) in the
Vivek Goyal writes:
> A. Just exit to user space with -EFAULT (using kvm request) and don't
>wait for the accessing task to run on vcpu again.
What if we also save the required information (RIP, GFN, ...) in the
guest along with the APF token so in case of -EFAULT we can just 'crash'
the
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 09:16:20AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:33:18AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:13:14PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Now I have few questions.
> >
> > - If we exit to user space asynchronously (using kvm
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:33:18AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:13:14PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Now I have few questions.
>
> - If we exit to user space asynchronously (using kvm request), what debug
> information is in there which tells user which address
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:13:14PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 04:02:14PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 12:45:18PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 03:27:34PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 02,
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 04:02:14PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 12:45:18PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 03:27:34PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 11:30:37AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 02,
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 12:45:18PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 03:27:34PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 11:30:37AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 11:38:54AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 01,
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 03:27:34PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 11:30:37AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 11:38:54AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 03:33:20PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > Alternatively,
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 11:30:37AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 11:38:54AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 03:33:20PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Alternatively, what about adding a new KVM request type to handle this?
> > > E.g. when
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 11:38:54AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 03:33:20PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Alternatively, what about adding a new KVM request type to handle this?
> > E.g. when the APF comes back with -EFAULT, snapshot the GFN and make a
> > request.
On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 03:33:20PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 05:55:08PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 09:37:00PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:13:59PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > @@ -10369,6
On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 05:55:08PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 09:37:00PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:13:59PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > @@ -10369,6 +10378,36 @@ void kvm_set_rflags(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > unsigned long
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 09:37:00PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:13:59PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 ++
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu.h | 2 +-
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 2 +-
> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:13:59PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 ++
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.h | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 54 +++--
> include/linux/kvm_types.h
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:13:59PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Page fault error handling behavior in kvm seems little inconsistent when
> page fault reports error. If we are doing fault synchronously
> then we capture error (-EFAULT) returned by __gfn_to_pfn_memslot() and
> exit to user space and
> Page fault error handling behavior in kvm seems little inconsistent when
> page fault reports error. If we are doing fault synchronously
> then we capture error (-EFAULT) returned by __gfn_to_pfn_memslot() and
> exit to user space and qemu reports error, "error: kvm run failed Bad
> address".
>
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 06:09:32PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Vivek Goyal writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:13:59PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >> Page fault error handling behavior in kvm seems little inconsistent when
> >> page fault reports error. If we are doing fault
Vivek Goyal writes:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:13:59PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> Page fault error handling behavior in kvm seems little inconsistent when
>> page fault reports error. If we are doing fault synchronously
>> then we capture error (-EFAULT) returned by __gfn_to_pfn_memslot()
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:13:59PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Page fault error handling behavior in kvm seems little inconsistent when
> page fault reports error. If we are doing fault synchronously
> then we capture error (-EFAULT) returned by __gfn_to_pfn_memslot() and
> exit to user space and
Page fault error handling behavior in kvm seems little inconsistent when
page fault reports error. If we are doing fault synchronously
then we capture error (-EFAULT) returned by __gfn_to_pfn_memslot() and
exit to user space and qemu reports error, "error: kvm run failed Bad address".
But if we
31 matches
Mail list logo
