On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 2:18 PM Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2026, James Houghton wrote: > > I wonder if it makes sense to add similar hardening to kvm_faultin_pfn(). > > What do you think? > > I'm not opposed to explicitly hardening kvm_faultin_pfn(), but I don't think > it > would add much value in practice. Far more arch code uses __kvm_faultin_pfn() > directly, and that doesn't have a @vcpu or @vm pointer to do the check. We > could > obviously "fix" that, but nuking the memslots (patches 3-5) will prevent all > but > the most ridiculous bugs. Getting anywhere near __kvm_faultin_pfn() with the > wrong mm would either mean KVM is doing something amazingly stupid during VM > teardown, or I guess maybe the scheduler or preempt notifiers went off the > rails?
Yeah, fair enough. It would be of pretty limited benefit. Thanks.
