Re: Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP from userspace)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2020-06-23 13:59:56
Also in:
kvm, lkml
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2020-06-23 13:59:56
Also in:
kvm, lkml
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 03:40:03PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 02:52:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted
You only have that guarantee when any SNP #VC from kernel is an automatic panic. But in that case, what's the point of having the recursion count?It is not a recursion count, it is a stack-recursion check. Basically walk down the stack and look if your current stack is already in use. Yes, this can be optimized, but that is what is needed. IIRC the current prototype code for SNP just pre-validates all memory in the VM and doesn't support moving pages around on the host. So any #VC SNP exception would be fatal, yes. In a scenario with on-demand validation of guest pages and support for guest-assisted page-moving on the HV side it would be more complicated. Basically all memory that is accessed during #VC exception handling must stay validated at all times, including the IST stack. So saying this, I don't understand why _all_ SNP #VC exceptions from kernel space must be fatal?
Ah, because I hadn't thought of the stack-recursion check. So basically when your exception frame points to your own IST, you die. That sounds like something we should have in generic IST code.