Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-22 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 22/05/2020 14:32, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 02:11:15PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 22/05/2020 14:04, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 22.05.2020 13:11, Roger Pau Monné wrote: That being said, I also don't like the fact that logdity is handled differently between

Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-22 Thread Jan Beulich
On 22.05.2020 12:19, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 22/05/2020 11:05, Igor Druzhinin wrote: >> On 22/05/2020 10:45, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 21/05/2020 22:43, Igor Druzhinin wrote: If a recalculation NPT fault hasn't been handled explicitly in hvm_hap_nested_page_fault() then it's

Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-22 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 02:11:15PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 22/05/2020 14:04, Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 22.05.2020 13:11, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >> That being said, I also don't like the fact that logdity is handled > >> differently between EPT and NPT, as on EPT it's handled as a > >>

Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-22 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 22/05/2020 14:04, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 22.05.2020 13:11, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> That being said, I also don't like the fact that logdity is handled >> differently between EPT and NPT, as on EPT it's handled as a >> misconfig while on NPT it's handled as a violation. > Because, well, there

Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-22 Thread Jan Beulich
On 22.05.2020 13:11, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > That being said, I also don't like the fact that logdity is handled > differently between EPT and NPT, as on EPT it's handled as a > misconfig while on NPT it's handled as a violation. Because, well, there is no concept of misconfig in NPT. Jan

Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-22 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:27:38AM +0100, Igor Druzhinin wrote: > On 22/05/2020 11:23, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:14:24AM +0100, Igor Druzhinin wrote: > >> On 22/05/2020 11:08, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Igor Druzhinin wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-22 Thread Igor Druzhinin
On 22/05/2020 11:23, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:14:24AM +0100, Igor Druzhinin wrote: >> On 22/05/2020 11:08, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Igor Druzhinin wrote: If a recalculation NPT fault hasn't been handled explicitly in

Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-22 Thread Igor Druzhinin
On 22/05/2020 11:19, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 22/05/2020 11:05, Igor Druzhinin wrote: >> On 22/05/2020 10:45, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 21/05/2020 22:43, Igor Druzhinin wrote: If a recalculation NPT fault hasn't been handled explicitly in hvm_hap_nested_page_fault() then it's

Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-22 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:14:24AM +0100, Igor Druzhinin wrote: > On 22/05/2020 11:08, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Igor Druzhinin wrote: > >> If a recalculation NPT fault hasn't been handled explicitly in > >> hvm_hap_nested_page_fault() then it's

Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-22 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 22/05/2020 11:05, Igor Druzhinin wrote: > On 22/05/2020 10:45, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 21/05/2020 22:43, Igor Druzhinin wrote: >>> If a recalculation NPT fault hasn't been handled explicitly in >>> hvm_hap_nested_page_fault() then it's potentially safe to retry - >>> US bit has been

Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-22 Thread Igor Druzhinin
On 22/05/2020 11:08, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Igor Druzhinin wrote: >> If a recalculation NPT fault hasn't been handled explicitly in >> hvm_hap_nested_page_fault() then it's potentially safe to retry - >> US bit has been re-instated in PTE and any real

Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-22 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Igor Druzhinin wrote: > If a recalculation NPT fault hasn't been handled explicitly in > hvm_hap_nested_page_fault() then it's potentially safe to retry - > US bit has been re-instated in PTE and any real fault would be correctly > re-raised next time. >

Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-22 Thread Igor Druzhinin
On 22/05/2020 10:45, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 21/05/2020 22:43, Igor Druzhinin wrote: >> If a recalculation NPT fault hasn't been handled explicitly in >> hvm_hap_nested_page_fault() then it's potentially safe to retry - >> US bit has been re-instated in PTE and any real fault would be correctly

Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-22 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 21/05/2020 22:43, Igor Druzhinin wrote: > If a recalculation NPT fault hasn't been handled explicitly in > hvm_hap_nested_page_fault() then it's potentially safe to retry - > US bit has been re-instated in PTE and any real fault would be correctly > re-raised next time. > > This covers a

Re: [PATCH] x86/svm: retry after unhandled NPT fault if gfn was marked for recalculation

2020-05-21 Thread Igor Druzhinin
On 21/05/2020 22:43, Igor Druzhinin wrote: > If a recalculation NPT fault hasn't been handled explicitly in > hvm_hap_nested_page_fault() then it's potentially safe to retry - > US bit has been re-instated in PTE and any real fault would be correctly > re-raised next time. > > This covers a