On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 06:11:59AM +0800, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote: > On Fri, 2025-05-16 at 17:17 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote: > > > Shouldn't this BUG_ON be handled in the split_external_spt implementation? I > > > don't think we need another one. > > Ok. But kvm_x86_split_external_spt() is not for TDX only. > > Is it good for KVM MMU core to rely on each implementation to trigger BUG_ON? > > It effectively is for TDX only. At least for the foreseeable future. The naming > basically means that people don't have to see "TDX" everywhere when they look in > the MMU code. Hmm, another reason to add the BUG_ON is to align it with remove_external_spte(). There's also a KVM_BUG_ON() following the remove_external_spte hook. I interpret this as error handling in the KVM MMU core, which returns "void", so issuing BUG_ON if ret != 0.
