From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CABE914A8C; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 08:56:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.13 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709542622; cv=none; b=UH3XfNTJ9RL2qPdFz9F02aBlkj8M17n38X9JwnD6+DY7qsI/cYLlU6Le1EMlrX0KRwc+bEfFDcyZgyqPFi7bGqWpxHI8uZp2j0CEf3XafPL8e2oB/fU14RHcdmijF+aJmDwPYSn7SxmUdKAElm7i93+4wmbGuZA2kwBBtLbq7+E= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709542622; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sr6gtABwiwykguXjTH272CA4oVkPXPYSSJvrXaGgQPE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=q7zt0pEPk17PGmBqiVl+KFchAobhBch+w8zFU/bRsWowKQnOc0dFSnGzZfqIsBUVcEjPwn6bqdUB6Z/4IjGjGM1OqihDSJqd55Y+C92XI8XH4PUxOiFzeOeN0fgNXAkuqNAolRhcPhMRB/ze8FnKwsl9L/OkJFJlhF0GhuVAf0Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=NXgqHGRV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.13 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="NXgqHGRV" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1709542620; x=1741078620; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sr6gtABwiwykguXjTH272CA4oVkPXPYSSJvrXaGgQPE=; b=NXgqHGRV6DV/wGGLAwL0Oz9F7xB08lDYPfbcarU4Jp6OmFcHwotVFau/ UHKY1NEQKny/+VjT1HE9uNq3IRsIQEpPS434A9U0ONCi78lDfmQ+nqr2h 8rvD1T78u2KNdIsM8c9GrSNcErk8aU57pKIFIhTiCwEXh3Q30NsCa8aVE nQ9sP/Hu5seC7N+gE3MwDWlZb25erjHqoyjSZIH1HD48uJjTTHcZV1Nlp Niy+N977GRn/3w//xPehwtSXTSTVIPocF9LiU1pSwf4EwFsiUMXSH0p/H 0TKTuOl+ltBiwdYI1ixi0muwtSTz/XhoNjFBznunfTPLRv5M85/tTW9rP g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11002"; a="6974452" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,203,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="6974452" Received: from orviesa007.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.147]) by fmvoesa107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Mar 2024 00:56:49 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,203,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="9295607" Received: from xiaoyaol-hp-g830.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.125.243.127]) ([10.125.243.127]) by orviesa007-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Mar 2024 00:56:48 -0800 Message-ID: <754f2fcf-fc00-4f89-a17c-a80bbec1e2ff@intel.com> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 16:56:44 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/21] KVM: x86/mmu: Pass around full 64-bit error code for KVM page faults Content-Language: en-US To: Paolo Bonzini , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: seanjc@google.com, michael.roth@amd.com, isaku.yamahata@intel.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com References: <20240227232100.478238-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20240227232100.478238-14-pbonzini@redhat.com> From: Xiaoyao Li In-Reply-To: <20240227232100.478238-14-pbonzini@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2/28/2024 7:20 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > From: Isaku Yamahata > ... > 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.