On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:59:24AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 05:16:57PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:

quoted

+	/*
+	 * Mark the per-cpu GHCBs as in-use to detect nested #VC exceptions.
+	 * There is no need for it to be atomic, because nothing is written to
+	 * the GHCB between the read and the write of ghcb_active. So it is safe
+	 * to use it when a nested #VC exception happens before the write.
+	 */

Looks liks that is that text... support for nested #VC exceptions.
I'm sure this has come up already but why do we even want to support
nested #VCs? IOW, can we do without them first or are they absolutely
necessary?

I'm guessing VC exceptions inside the VC handler but what are the
sensible use cases?

The most important use-case is #VC->NMI->#VC. When an NMI hits while the
#VC handler uses the GHCB and the NMI handler causes another #VC, then
the contents of the GHCB needs to be backed up, so that it doesn't
destroy the GHCB contents of the first #VC handling path.


Regards,

	Joerg