Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] KVM: VMX: Implement LASS violation check

[Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@intel.com>]

On 9/15/2026 7:04 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> That said, I love Sohil's idea of adding a function comment.  Someting along the
> lines of "The basic flow is this: <example>, but the actual behavior is far more
> subtle due to many exceptions and edge cases".

Great, how about this?


> /*
>  * Check if an access violates LASS purely based on bit 63 of the linear address
>  * and whether the access targets the "wrong" half of the address space. The
>  * basic flow is straightforward:
>  *
>  *	if (exempt from LASS)
>  *		no violation;
>  *	else if (user access)
>  *		violation when address is in the supervisor half;
>  *	else
>  *		violation when address is in the user half;
>  *
>  * but the actual behavior is far more subtle due to the many exceptions and
>  * edge cases. For example, the implementation depends on which accesses are
>  * exempt, what constitutes a user access, and how supervisor data accesses
>  * differ from instruction fetches.
>  */
> bool vmx_is_lass_violation(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t gva,
> 			   unsigned int size, unsigned int flags)



Sean, other than this, do you want to see any big change in the series?

The sashiko complains are false-positives. There are a couple of nits to
be addressed, and I need to change Binbin's SoBs into Reviewed-bys.
Otherwise, I think the series (1-5) is getting ready to be picked up.