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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 BC08AC352A4 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:59:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF5D2082F for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:59:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727516AbgBJV7v (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:59:51 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:20034 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727003AbgBJV7v (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:59:51 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Feb 2020 13:59:51 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,426,1574150400"; d="scan'208";a="433469425" Received: from sjchrist-coffee.jf.intel.com (HELO linux.intel.com) ([10.54.74.202]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2020 13:59:49 -0800 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:59:49 -0800 From: Sean Christopherson To: Vitaly Kuznetsov Cc: Andy Lutomirski , David Laight , Xiaoyao Li , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Paolo Bonzini , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: Emulate split-lock access as a write Message-ID: <20200210215949.GD2510@linux.intel.com> References: <777C5046-B9DE-4F8C-B04F-28A546AE4A3F@amacapital.net> <20200131200134.GD18946@linux.intel.com> <87y2timmto.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y2timmto.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 03:47:15PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > Sean Christopherson writes: > > > Exiting to host userspace with "emulation failed" is the other reasonable > > alternative, but that's basically the same as killing the guest. We're > > arguing that, in the extremely unlikely event that there is a workload out > > there that hits this, it's preferable to *maybe* corrupt guest memory and > > log the anomaly in the kernel log, as opposed to outright killing the guest > > with a generic "emulation failed". > > > > FWIW, if I was to cast a vote I'd pick 'kill the guest' one way or > another. "Maybe corrupt guest memory" scares me much more and in many > cases host and guest are different responsibility domains (think > 'cloud'). I'm ok with that route as well. What I don't want to do is add a bunch of logic to inject #AC at this point.