Re: [PATCH v9 3/8] KVM: Add KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT exit

[Sean Christopherson]

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