Re: [PATCH] KVM: TDX: Synthesize SHUTDOWN instead of returning -EIO on unhandled EPT violation

["Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>]

On Wed, 2026-09-23 at 09:33 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Synthesize a triple fault, i.e. exit to userspace with KVM_EXIT_SHUTDOWN,
> instead of returning -EIO from KVM_RUN if KVM encounters an EPT Violation
> due to a guest access to a pending page.  Returning -EIO implies KVM is
> buggy, and most VMMs will respond by completely terminating the VM, versus
> rebooting the VM in response to KVM_EXIT_SHUTDOWN.  I.e. give the VMM the
> option of trying to keep the VM (from the end user's perspective) alive.

Why not just return KVM_EXIT_SHUTDOWN directly when the pending ept violation is
detected? The synthetic triple fault makes it harder to trace what is happening.
I guess there is some centralization, but harder to trace.

> 
> Ideally, KVM would probably exit with KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT, but KVM would
> need to extend run->memory_fault so that userspace knows the fault can't be
> handled.  This scenario specifically occurs when the guest has deliberately
> disabled #VEs on unaccepted memory for security purposes, i.e. the guest
> literally disabled the mechanism that tells it it screwed up.  But, because
> this is fatal, and the whole point is to NOT try to fixup the fault,
> jumping through hoops to return MEMORY_FAULT instead of SHUTDOWN doesn't
> make a whole lot of sense.
> 
> Fixes: e6a85781f783 ("KVM: TDX: Detect unexpected SEPT violations due to pending SPTEs")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>
> Cc: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
> Cc: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
> Cc: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
> Cc: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@google.com>
> Cc: Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> ---
> 
> Compile tested only.

Yan, I vaguely recall you had a test that could trigger this case during the
base enabling?