Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/hyperv: do not overwrite hc->ingpa for slow SIGNAL_EVENT hypercall

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

+James

On Tue, Sep 22, 2026, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 12:52 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > > index 9f5adcd26cba..e3a8e8236230 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > > @@ -2501,6 +2501,7 @@ static int kvm_hvcall_signal_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *h
> > >  {
> > >       struct kvm_hv *hv = to_kvm_hv(vcpu->kvm);
> > >       struct eventfd_ctx *eventfd;
> > > +     u64 conn_id;
> > >       int ret;
> >
> > This doesn't apply to any branch I can find, and there is some unnecessary variable
> > shadowing going on here as well.
> >
> > The actual change looks good, but the diff is wonky.
> 
> You're right, I probably generated this from the wrong branch (or
> machine). The right patch is at
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20260918135030.171564-2-pbonzini@redhat.com/.
> 
> (BTW, I would like to talk about memory attributes and kvm-userfault
> next Wednesday... and whether those are two different things at all).

By "next" Wednesday, do you mean the 23rd or the 30th?  I want to make sure James
is pulled into the discussion as he know a lot more than I do with respect to
Google's use cases for KVM Userfault.