On Thursday, June 15, 2023 10:56 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > Because that's even further away from the truth when accounting for the fact > that the flag controls behavior when handling are *guest* faults. The What do you mean by guest faults here? I think more precisely, it's host page fault triggered by guest access (through host GUP though), isn't it? When the flag is set, we want to have this fault to be handled by userspace? > memslot flag doesn't cause KVM to exit on every guest fault. And > USERSPACE_FAULT is far too vague; KVM constantly faults in userspace > mappings, the flag needs to communicate that KVM *won't* do that for guest > accesses. I was trying to meant USERSPACE_FAULT_HANDLING. > > Something like KVM_MEM_NO_USERFAULT_ON_GUEST_ACCESS? Ridiculously Yeah, it's kind of verbose. Was your intension for "NO_USERFAULT" to mean bypassing the userfaultfd mechanism?
