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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3986AC4332F for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 16:10:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232604AbiLLQKW (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2022 11:10:22 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58938 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232589AbiLLQKS (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2022 11:10:18 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B67432660 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 08:10:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1670861416; x=1702397416; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CSivnj4EN1Y5ag/z4ECT81ZO0sOSCFPcf5f3ESOg+0c=; b=BZZAVN5s89GU4aLppUjTRsSWXyoH9C8CJ9nDHlTSdFEKB2e+T2ms8lXc bklMrlktP3OxYNNdJxxahv7PeSKIK85F0Uq7p65+iTrCSfqvARX5XJInY 2ClJmioIZyBL9zGrBXrIGoh5b7P/wVMrAPEY8jQg/r+5MSaF3YwlM+OnK 6IxJU8Se2OyFeuZ6gS6/AKo0QYAHRcxQfcOAE/S+VIQAOGpVVbUyBYxsN qde69Tnl7pATMcfu4KIAu/mnfMZTG6cmZksdr/pRniS3ZGb8uE3Qc2GOy 7EP4E2vn+WBUhjTfF3FyoIA2epxia/geVv/3J5/60J3g/RjkMrevEqnqm w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10559"; a="305534535" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,238,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="305534535" Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Dec 2022 08:10:15 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10559"; a="790546298" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,238,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="790546298" Received: from iprasad-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.212.182.78]) ([10.212.182.78]) by fmsmga001-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Dec 2022 08:10:14 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 08:10:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/tdx: Use ReportFatalError to report missing SEPT_VE_DISABLE Content-Language: en-US To: Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy , "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , Elena Reshetova , x86@kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20221209132524.20200-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20221209132524.20200-3-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20221209170647.r32yjyc3hsqtnffo@box.shutemov.name> <2e305bb5-9595-3531-6134-24344ff5c797@linux.intel.com> From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <2e305bb5-9595-3531-6134-24344ff5c797@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/9/22 12:51, Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy wrote: >>>> + while (1) { >>>> + __tdx_hypercall(&args, 0); >>>> + } >>> Instead of an infinite loop, I'm wondering if the guest should panic after >>> retrying for few times. >> Hm. What difference would it make? > IIUC, the goal of this patch is to report the fatal error to VMM and panic. > But, if VMM does not terminate the guest as we expect, rather than trying > continuously, isn't it better to panic ourselves? That way the behavior > will be similar to what we have currently. What does "panic ourselves" mean exactly? What is the current behavior which that would match?