On Tue, May 21, 2024, Kai Huang wrote: > On 18/05/2024 12:04 pm, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Point vmcs02.VE_INFORMATION_ADDRESS at the vCPU's #VE info page when > > initializing vmcs02, otherwise KVM will run L2 with EPT Violation #VE > > enabled and a VE info address pointing at pfn 0. > > How about we just clear EPT_VIOLATION_VE bit in 2nd_exec_control > unconditionally for vmcs02? Because then KVM wouldn't get any EPT Violation #VE coverage for L2, and as evidence by the KVM-Unit-Test failure, running L2 with EPT Violation #VEs enabled provides unique coverage. Doing so definitely provides coverage beyond what is strictly needed for TDX, but it's just as easy to set the VE info page in vmcs02 as it is so clear EPT_VIOLATION_VE, so why not. > Your next patch says: > > " > Always handle #VEs, e.g. due to prove EPT Violation #VE failures, in L0, > as KVM does not expose any #VE capabilities to L1, i.e. any and all #VEs > are KVM's responsibility. > " I don't see how that's relevant to whether or not KVM enables EPT Violation #VEs while L2 is running. That patch simply routes all #VEs to L0, it doesn't affect whether or not it's safe to enable EPT Violation #VEs for L2.
