Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-133444-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240227232100.478238-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20240227232100.478238-14-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <754f2fcf-fc00-4f89-a17c-a80bbec1e2ff@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <754f2fcf-fc00-4f89-a17c-a80bbec1e2ff@intel.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 19:57:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CABgObfaGhH1aQyR-k_x=yrSRE3uwDpx9JJoMdiAdJCq72-O4DA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/21] KVM: x86/mmu: Pass around full 64-bit error code
 for KVM page faults
To: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, seanjc@google.com, 
	michael.roth@amd.com, isaku.yamahata@intel.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 9:57=E2=80=AFAM Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com> wr=
ote:
>
> On 2/28/2024 7:20 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
> >
> ...
> > The use of lower_32_bits() moves from kvm_mmu_page_fault() to
> > FNAME(page_fault), since walking is independent of the data in the
> > upper bits of the error code.
>
> Is it a must? I don't see any issue if full u64 error_code is passed to
> FNAME(page_fault) as well.

The full error code *is* passed to kvm_mmu_do_page_fault() and
FNAME(page_fault), it's only dropped when passed to FNAME(walk_addr).

Paolo