On Wed, Aug 23, 2023, Anish Moorthy wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:20 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I don't anticipate anything beyond the memory fault case. We essentially already > > treat incomplete exits to userspace as KVM bugs. MMIO is the only other case I > > can think of where KVM doesn't complete an exit to usersapce, but that one is > > essentially getting grandfathered in because of x86's flawed MMIO handling. > > Userspace memory faults also get grandfathered in because of paravirt ABIs, i.e. > > KVM is effectively required to ignore some faults due to external forces. > > Well that's good to hear. Are you sure that we don't want to add even > just a dedicated u8 to indicate the speculative exit reason though? Pretty sure. > I'm just thinking that the different structs in speculative_exit will > be mutually exclusive, Given that we have no idea what the next "speculative" exit might be, I don't think it's safe to assume that the next one will be mutually exclusive with memory_fault. I'm essentially betting that we'll never have more than 8 "speculative" exit types, which IMO is a pretty safe bet. > whereas flags/bitfields usually indicate non-mutually exclusive conditions.
