On Wed, Nov 16, 2022, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022, at 8:13 AM, Chao Peng wrote:
> > diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> > b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> > index f3fa75649a78..975688912b8c 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> > @@ -6537,6 +6537,29 @@ array field represents return values. The
> > userspace should update the return
> > values of SBI call before resuming the VCPU. For more details on
> > RISC-V SBI
> > spec refer, https://github.com/riscv/riscv-sbi-doc.
> >
> > +::
> > +
> > + /* KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT */
> > + struct {
> > + #define KVM_MEMORY_EXIT_FLAG_PRIVATE (1 << 0)
> > + __u32 flags;
> > + __u32 padding;
> > + __u64 gpa;
> > + __u64 size;
> > + } memory;
> > +
>
> Would it make sense to also have a field for the access type (read, write,
> execute, etc)? I realize that shared <-> private conversion doesn't strictly
> need this, but it seems like it could be useful for logging failures and also
> for avoiding a second immediate fault if the type gets converted but doesn't
> have the right protection yet.
I don't think a separate field is necessary, that info can be conveyed via
flags.
Though maybe we should go straight to a u64 for flags. Hmm, and maybe avoid
bits
0-3 so that if/when RWX info is conveyed the flags can align with
PROT_{READ,WRITE,EXEC} and the EPT flags, e.g.
KVM_MEMORY_EXIT_FLAG_READ (1 << 0)
KVM_MEMORY_EXIT_FLAG_WRITE (1 << 1)
KVM_MEMORY_EXIT_FLAG_EXECUTE (1 << 2)
> (Obviously, if this were changed, KVM would need the ability to report that
> it doesn't actually know the mode.)
>
> --Andy
