On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 6:44 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Eh, the shortlog basically says "do work" with a lot of fancy words. It really > just boils down to: > > KVM: Let callers of __gfn_to_pfn_memslot() opt-out of USERFAULT_ON_MISSING Proposed commit message for v6: > KVM: Implement KVM_CAP EXIT_ON_MISSING by checking memslot flag in __gfn_to_pfn_memslot() > > When the slot flag is enabled, forbid __gfn_to_pfn_memslot() from > faulting in pages for which mappings are absent. However, some callers of > __gfn_to_pfn_memslot() (such as kvm_vcpu_map()) must be able to opt out > of this behavior: allow doing so via the new can_exit_on_missing > parameter. Although separately, I don't think the parameter should be named can_exit_on_missing (or, as you suggested, can_do_userfault)- __gfn_to_pfn_memslot() shouldn't know or care how its callers are setting up KVM exits, after all. I think it makes sense to rename the new parameter and, for the same reasoning, the memslot flag to "forbid_fault_on_missing" and KVM_MEM_FORBID_FAULT_ON_MISSING respectively. Objections?
