Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] x86/entry: Atomic statck switching for IST

[Dave Hansen]

On 4/3/23 07:05, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> 2.3 #VE
> -------
> 
> The approach for fixing the kernel mode #VE recursion issue is to just
> NOT use IST for #VE although #VE is also considered to be one of the
> super exceptions and had raised some worries:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YCEQiDNSHTGBXBcj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CALCETrU9XypKbj-TrXLB3CPW6=MZ__5ifLz0ckbB=c=Myegn9Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1843debc-05e8-4d10-73e4-7ddce3b3eae2@xxxxxxxxx/
> 
> To remit the worries,  SEPT_VE_DISABLE is forced used currently and
> also disables its abilities (accept-on-demand or memory balloon which
> is critical to lightweight VMs like Kata Containers):
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YCb0%2FDg28uI7TRD%2F@xxxxxxxxxx/

You don't need #VE for accept-on-demand.  Pages go through _very_
well-defined software choke points before they get used *and* before
they get ballooned.  Thus:

> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230330114956.20342-3-kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

BTW, _who_ considers #VE to be a "super exception"?  Can you explain how
it is any more "super" than #PF?  #PF can recurse.  You can take #PF in
the entry paths.

I kinda don't think you should be using TDX and #VE as part of the
justification for this series.