From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosry@kernel.org>
Cc: Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@linux.dev>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: SVM: Triple fault L1 on unintercepted EFER.SVME clear by L2
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 14:48:21 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aaYTtTBFmlzfb7tX@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAO9r8zPvQ1+_HGNuRZJuOTQ_YJHgMB=52-68rHFXKF8mWy6CNw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2026, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > What if we key off vcpu->wants_to_run?
> >
> > That crossed my mind too.
> >
> > > It's less protection against false positives from things like
> > > kvm_vcpu_reset() if it didn't leave nested before clearing EFER, but
> > > more protection against the #VMEXIT case you mentioned. Also should be
> > > much lower on the fugliness scale imo.
> >
> > Yeah, I had pretty much the exact same thought process and assessment. I suggested
> > the WRMSR approach because I'm not sure how I feel about using wants_to_run for
> > functional behavior. But after realizing that hooking WRMSR won't handle RSM,
> > I'm solidly against my WRMSR idea.
> >
> > Honestly, I'm leaning slightly towards dropping this patch entirely since it's
> > not a bug fix. But I'm definitely not completely against it either. So what if
> > we throw it in, but plan on reverting if there are any more problems (that aren't
> > obviously due to goofs elsewhere in KVM).
>
> I am okay with that.
>
> >
> > Is this what you were thinking?
>
> Yeah, exactly.
Nice. No need for a v3, I'll fixup when applying (it might be a while before
this gets any "thanks", as I want to land it behind all of the stable@ fixes).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-02 22:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-09 19:51 [PATCH v2 0/2] KVM: nSVM: Handle L2 clearing EFER.SVME properly Yosry Ahmed
2026-02-09 19:51 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: SVM: Triple fault L1 on unintercepted EFER.SVME clear by L2 Yosry Ahmed
2026-02-26 16:36 ` Yosry Ahmed
2026-02-26 18:20 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-02-27 20:03 ` Yosry Ahmed
2026-02-28 0:41 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-02-28 0:46 ` Yosry Ahmed
2026-03-02 22:48 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2026-02-09 19:51 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: selftests: Add a test for L2 clearing EFER.SVME without intercept Yosry Ahmed
2026-03-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] KVM: nSVM: Handle L2 clearing EFER.SVME properly Sean Christopherson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aaYTtTBFmlzfb7tX@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=yosry.ahmed@linux.dev \
--cc=yosry@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox