Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] KVM: Support guest MAXPHYADDR < host MAXPHYADDR

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 22/06/20 19:57, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>> In bare-metal, there's no guarantee a CPU will report all the faults in a
>>> single PF error code. And because of race conditions, software can never
>>> rely on that behavior. Whenever the OS thinks it has cured an error, it
>>> must always be able to handle another #PF for the same access when it
>>> retries because another processor could have modified the PTE in the
>>> meantime.
>> I agree, but I don't understand the relation to this patch.  Can you
>> explain?
>
> I guess I'm trying to understand why RSVD has to be reported to the guest
> on a #PF (vs an NPF) when there's no guarantee that it can receive that
> error code today even when guest MAXPHYADDR == host MAXPHYADDR. That would
> eliminate the need to trap #PF.

That's an interesting observation!  But do processors exist where either:

1) RSVD doesn't win over all other bits, assuming no race conditions

2) A/D bits can be clobbered in a page table entry that has reserved
bits set?

Running the x86/access.flat testcase from kvm-unit-tests on bare metal
suggests that all existing processors do neither of the above.

In particular, the second would be a showstopper on AMD.

Paolo