[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6b9072fb-1232-e9fb-0b97-e69709980f99@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 14:13:05 -0600
From: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>,
Haibo Xu <haibo.xu@...aro.org>,
lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Juan Quintela <quintela@...hat.com>,
QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
kvmarm <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] MTE support for KVM guest
On 12/9/20 12:39 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> I would have thought that the best way is to use TCO, so that we don't have to
>> have dual mappings (and however many MB of extra page tables that might imply).
>
> The problem appears when the VMM wants to use MTE itself (e.g. linked
> against an MTE-aware glibc), toggling TCO is no longer generic enough,
> especially when it comes to device emulation.
But we do know exactly when we're manipulating guest memory -- we have special
routines for that. So the special routines gain a toggle of TCO around the
exact guest memory manipulation, not a blanket disable of MTE across large
swaths of QEMU.
r~
Powered by blists - more mailing lists