Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <20e1e7b1-ece7-e9e7-9085-999f7a916ac2@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:37:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Do not create SPTEs for GFNs that exceed
 host.MAXPHYADDR
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
References: <20220428233416.2446833-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <337332ca-835c-087c-c99b-92c35ea8dcd3@redhat.com>
 <Ymv1I5ixX1+k8Nst@google.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <Ymv1I5ixX1+k8Nst@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/29/22 16:24, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> I don't love the divergent memslot behavior, but it's technically correct, so I
> can't really argue.  Do we want to "officially" document the memslot behavior?
> 

I don't know what you mean by officially document, but at least I have 
relied on it to test KVM's MAXPHYADDR=52 cases before such hardware 
existed. :)

Paolo