On Wed, Jun 18, 2025, Oliver Upton wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 01:33:17PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025, Oliver Upton wrote: > > And this path is other motiviation for returning a boolean. To me, return "success" > > when a uaccess fails looks all kinds of wrong: > > > > if (__get_user(chunk, user_chunk)) > > return 0; > > Yeah, that's gross. Although I would imagine we want to express > "failure" here, game over, out to userspace for resolution. So maybe: > > if (__get_user(chunk, user_chunk)) > return -EFAULT; I toyed with that idea too, but if kvm_do_userfault() returns a value, that it bugs me to no end that the callers blindly convert all failures to -EFAULT. To avoid that, callers would have to be: r = kvm_do_userfault(vcpu, &fault); if (r) return r; And that just annoyed me. :-) But I'm a-ok with that direction if that's preferrable to the boolean return.
