Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: selftests: Test prefault memory during concurrent memslot removal

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 04:47:23PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > +		if (!slot_recreated) {
> > +			WRITE_ONCE(data.recreate_slot, true);
> > +			pthread_join(slot_worker, NULL);
> > +			slot_recreated = true;
> > +			continue;
> If delete_slot_worker() invokes vm_mem_region_delete() slowly enough due to
> scheduling delays, the return value from __vcpu_ioctl() could be 0 with
> range.size being 0 at this point.
> 
> What about checking range.size before continuing?
> 
> @@ -120,7 +126,8 @@ static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 base_gpa, u64 offset,
>                         WRITE_ONCE(data.recreate_slot, true);
>                         pthread_join(slot_worker, NULL);
>                         slot_recreated = true;
> -                       continue;
> +                       if (range.size)
> +                               continue;
>                 }
> 
> 
> Otherwise, the next __vcpu_ioctl() would return -1 with errno == EINVAL, which
> will break the assertion below.

Drat, I missed that kvm_vcpu_pre_fault_memory() returns -EINVAL on a size of '0'
(see the wrong comment snippet "Either prefaulting already succeeded, in which
case retrying should also succeed, or retry is needed to get a stable result").

I'll circle back to this tomorrow.  IIRC, there was a reason I didn't want to
check range.size in that path, but for the life of me I can't remember why :-/