[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <df2e2cd9-18d5-f35e-6c05-5ba0c399ccbe@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:58:42 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Nathan Tempelman <natet@...gle.com>
Cc: Thomas Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Steve Rutherford <srutherford@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
Ashish Kalra <Ashish.Kalra@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] KVM: x86: Support KVM VMs sharing SEV context
On 16/03/21 18:52, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> I don't
>> know that holding the fd instead of the kvm makes that much better though,
>> are there advantages to that I'm not seeing?
> If there's no kvm pointer, it's much more difficult for someone to do the wrong
> thing, and any such shenanigans stick out like a sore thumb in patches, which
> makes reviewing future changes easier.
On the other hand holding the fd open complicates the code, reference
counting rules are already hard enough.
I think we only need a replacement for "mirror", what about "dependent"?
"is_dependent_enc_context" seems clear enough.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists