The content of comment should be user fault not read. In order to avoid
confusion, fix the comment.

Signed-off-by: Quanfa Fu <quanfafu@gmail.com>
---
 arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
index 7eec0226d56a..3c1012039517 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
@@ -5668,7 +5668,7 @@ static int handle_ept_violation(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 	gpa = vmcs_read64(GUEST_PHYSICAL_ADDRESS);
 	trace_kvm_page_fault(vcpu, gpa, exit_qualification);
 
-	/* Is it a read fault? */
+	/* Is it a user fault? */
 	error_code = (exit_qualification & EPT_VIOLATION_ACC_READ)
 		     ? PFERR_USER_MASK : 0;
 	/* Is it a write fault? */
-- 
2.31.1

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, Quanfa Fu wrote:
> The content of comment should be user fault not read. In order to avoid
> confusion, fix the comment.

No, the existing comment is correct.  Ignoring optional extensions, EPT doesn't
differntiate between Supervisor and User, but does support !READABLE mappings.
And so KVM piggybacks PFERR_USER_MASK to track whether or not an EPT fault occurred
on a read access.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Quanfa Fu <quanfafu@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index 7eec0226d56a..3c1012039517 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -5668,7 +5668,7 @@ static int handle_ept_violation(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	gpa = vmcs_read64(GUEST_PHYSICAL_ADDRESS);
>  	trace_kvm_page_fault(vcpu, gpa, exit_qualification);
>  
> -	/* Is it a read fault? */
> +	/* Is it a user fault? */
>  	error_code = (exit_qualification & EPT_VIOLATION_ACC_READ)
>  		     ? PFERR_USER_MASK : 0;
>  	/* Is it a write fault? */
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 
>