Re: [PATCH 70/70] x86/sev-es: Add NMI state tracking

Joerg Roedel
2020-03-19T19:27:00Z

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:40:39AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> Nope. A nested NMI will reset the interrupted NMI's return frame to
> cause it to run again when it's done. I don't think this will have
> any real interaction with #VC. There's no longjmp() here.

Ahh, so I misunderstood that part, in this case your proposal of sending
the NMI-complete message right at the beginning of do_nmi() should work
just fine. I will test this and see how it works out.

> I certainly *like* preventing nesting, but I don't think we really
> want a whole alternate NMI path just for a couple of messed-up AMD
> generations. And the TF trick is not so pretty either.

Indeed, if it could be avoided, it should.

>
> > > This causes us to pop the NMI frame off the stack. Assuming the NMI
> > > restart logic is invoked (which is maybe impossible?), we get #DB,
> > > which presumably is actually delivered. And we end up on the #DB
> > > stack, which might already have been in use, so we have a potential
> > > increase in nesting. Also, #DB may be called from an unexpected
> > > context.
> >
> > An SEV-ES hypervisor is required to intercept #DB, which means that the
> > #DB exception actually ends up being a #VC exception. So it will not end
> > up on the #DB stack.
>
> With your patch set, #DB doesn't seem to end up on the #DB stack either.

Right, it does not use the #DB stack or shift-ist stuff. Maybe it
should, is this needed for anything else than making entry code
debugable by kgdb?

Regards,

Joerg