From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4FEC10F00 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 19:01:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F2920665 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 19:01:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726296AbgCGTBK (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2020 14:01:10 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:55794 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726114AbgCGTBJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2020 14:01:09 -0500 Received: from p5de0bf0b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.224.191.11] helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jAeh7-0007da-F2; Sat, 07 Mar 2020 20:01:05 +0100 Received: by nanos.tec.linutronix.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 81EDA104088; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 20:01:04 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Andy Lutomirski , LKML , X86 ML , kvm list , Paolo Bonzini , stable Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/kvm: Disable KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS In-Reply-To: References: <87ftek9ngq.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 20:01:04 +0100 Message-ID: <87a74s9ehb.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org Andy Lutomirski writes: > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 7:47 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> The host knows exactly when it injects a async PF and it can store CR2 >> and reason of that async PF in flight. >> >> On the next VMEXIT it checks whether apf_reason is 0. If apf_reason is 0 >> then it knows that the guest has read CR2 and apf_reason. All good >> nothing to worry about. >> >> If not it needs to be careful. >> >> As long as the apf_reason of the last async #PF is not cleared by the >> guest no new async #PF can be injected. That's already correct because >> in that case IF==0 which prevents a nested async #PF. >> >> If MCE, NMI trigger a real pagefault then the #PF injection needs to >> clear apf_reason and set the correct CR2. When that #PF returns then the >> old CR2 and apf_reason need to be restored. > > How is the host supposed to know when the #PF returns? Intercepting > IRET sounds like a bad idea and, in any case, is not actually a > reliable indication that #PF returned. The host does not care about the IRET. It solely has to check whether apf_reason is 0 or not. That way it knows that the guest has read CR2 and apf_reason. Thanks, tglx