On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, Nikita Kalyazin wrote: > On 27/02/2025 16:44, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > When it comes to uAPI, I want to try and avoid statements along the lines of > > "IF 'x' holds true, then 'y' SHOULDN'T be a problem". If this didn't impact uAPI, > > I wouldn't care as much, i.e. I'd be much more willing iterate as needed. > > > > I'm not saying we should go straight for a complex implementation. Quite the > > opposite. But I do want us to consider the possible ramifications of using a > > single bit for all userfaults, so that we can at least try to design something > > that is extensible and won't be a pain to maintain. > > So you would've liked more the "two-bit per gfn" approach as in: provide 2 > interception points, for sync and async exits, with the former chosen by > userspace when it "knows" that the content is already in memory? No, all I'm saying is I want people think about what the future will look like, to minimize the chances of ending up with a mess.
