Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:24:06 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal Message-ID: <20201006162406.GE5306@redhat.com> References: <20201002211314.GE24460@linux.intel.com> <20201005153318.GA4302@redhat.com> <20201005161620.GC11938@linux.intel.com> <20201006134629.GB5306@redhat.com> <877ds38n6r.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> <20201006141501.GC5306@redhat.com> <874kn78l2z.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> <20201006150817.GD5306@redhat.com> <871rib8ji1.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> <20201006161200.GB17610@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201006161200.GB17610@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH v4] kvm, x86: Exit to user space in case page fault error List-Id: Development discussions about virtio-fs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Sean Christopherson Cc: virtio-fs-list , pbonzini@redhat.com, Vitaly Kuznetsov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 09:12:00AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:24:54PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > Vivek Goyal writes: > > > So you will have to report token (along with -EFAULT) to user space. So this > > > is basically the 3rd proposal which is extension of kvm API and will > > > report say HVA/GFN also to user space along with -EFAULT. > > > > Right, I meant to say that guest kernel has full register state of the > > userspace process which caused APF to get queued and instead of trying > > to extract it in KVM and pass to userspace in case of a (later) failure > > we limit KVM api change to contain token or GFN only and somehow keep > > the rest in the guest. This should help with TDX/SEV-ES. > > Whatever gets reported to userspace should be identical with and without > async page faults, i.e. it definitely shouldn't have token information. > > Note, TDX doesn't allow injection exceptions, so reflecting a #PF back > into the guest is not an option. Nor do I think that's "correct" > behavior (see everyone's objections to using #PF for APF fixed). I.e. the > event should probably be an IRQ. I am not sure if IRQ for "Page not Present" works. Will it have some conflicts/issues with other high priority interrupts which can get injected before "Page not present". Vivek