[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YIiMrWS60NuesU63@google.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 22:14:05 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
srutherford@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org, brijesh.singh@....com,
thomas.lendacky@....com, venu.busireddy@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: x86: add MSR_KVM_MIGRATION_CONTROL
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Add a new MSR that can be used to communicate whether the page
> encryption status bitmap is up to date and therefore whether live
> migration of an encrypted guest is possible.
>
> The MSR should be processed by userspace if it is going to live
> migrate the guest; the default implementation does nothing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> ---
...
> @@ -91,6 +93,8 @@ struct kvm_clock_pairing {
> /* MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF_INT */
> #define KVM_ASYNC_PF_VEC_MASK GENMASK(7, 0)
>
> +/* MSR_KVM_MIGRATION_CONTROL */
> +#define KVM_PAGE_ENC_STATUS_UPTODATE (1 << 0)
Why explicitly tie this to encryption status? AFAICT, doing so serves no real
purpose and can only hurt us in the long run. E.g. if a new use case for
"disabling" migration comes along and it has nothing to do with encryption, then
it has the choice of either using a different bit or bastardizing the existing
control.
I've no idea if such a use case is remotely likely to pop up, but allowing for
such a possibility costs us nothing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists