On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:24:11AM +0000, James Houghton wrote:
> From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Introduce "struct kvm_page_fault" and use it in user_mem_abort() in lieu
> of a collection of local variables. Providing "struct kvm_page_fault"
> will allow common KVM to provide APIs to take in said structure, e.g. when
> preparing memory fault exits.
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: James Houghton <jthoughton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 9 +++++++++
> arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++--------------
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 6ce2c51734820..ae83d95d11b74 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -413,6 +413,15 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_fault_info {
> u64 disr_el1; /* Deferred [SError] Status Register */
> };
>
> +struct kvm_page_fault {
> + const bool exec;
> + const bool write;
> + const bool is_private;
> +
> + gfn_t gfn;
> + struct kvm_memory_slot *slot;
> +};
> +
So this seems to cherry-pick "interesting" values into the structure but
leaves the rest of the abort context scattered about in locals. If we're
going to do something like this I'd rather have a wholesale refactoring
than just the bits to intersect with x86 (more on that later...)
Thanks,
Oliver
