Re: [PATCH v2 10/21] KVM:x86: Add #CP support in guest exception classification

["Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@intel.com>]

On 5/4/2023 1:36 PM, Binbin Wu wrote:
>
>
> On 5/4/2023 11:41 AM, Yang, Weijiang wrote:
>>
>> On 4/28/2023 2:09 PM, Binbin Wu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/21/2023 9:46 PM, Yang Weijiang wrote:
>>>> Add handling for Control Protection (#CP) exceptions(vector 21).
>>>> The new vector is introduced for Intel's Control-Flow Enforcement
>>>> Technology (CET) relevant violation cases.
>>>> See Intel's SDM for details.
>>>>
>> [...]
>>>>   -static int exception_class(int vector)
>>>> +static int exception_class(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int vector)
>>>>   {
>>>>       switch (vector) {
>>>>       case PF_VECTOR:
>>>>           return EXCPT_PF;
>>>> +    case CP_VECTOR:
>>>> +        if (vcpu->arch.cr4_guest_rsvd_bits & X86_CR4_CET)
>>>> +            return EXCPT_BENIGN;
>>>> +        return EXCPT_CONTRIBUTORY;
>>> By definition, #CP is Contributory.
>>> Can you explain more about this change here which treats #CP as 
>>> EXCPT_BENIGN when CET is not enabled in guest?
>>
>> I check the history of this patch, found maintainer modified the 
>> patch due to some unit test issue in L1. You can check the
>>
>> details here:
>>
>> Re: [PATCH v15 04/14] KVM: x86: Add #CP support in guest exception 
>> dispatch - Sean Christopherson (kernel.org) 
>> <https://lore.kernel.org/all/YBsZwvwhshw+s7yQ@google.com/>
>>
> OK, is it better to add the reason in changelog?
>
> IIUC, a new contributory exception vector (if any) should be handled 
> similarly (i.e., treated as contributory conditionally) in the future, 
> right?

Agree although the issue happens in an uncommon case, I'll add some 
description in changelog in following version, thanks!

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> In current KVM code, there is suppose no #CP triggered in guest if 
>>> CET is not enalbed in guest, right?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>>       case DE_VECTOR:
>>>>       case TS_VECTOR:
>>>>       case NP_VECTOR:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>