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.
