[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Ymv5TR76RNvFBQhz@google.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:42:21 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Do not create SPTEs for GFNs that exceed
host.MAXPHYADDR
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 4/29/22 16:24, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > I don't love the divergent memslot behavior, but it's technically correct, so I
> > can't really argue. Do we want to "officially" document the memslot behavior?
> >
>
> I don't know what you mean by officially document,
Something in kvm/api.rst under KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION.
> but at least I have relied on it to test KVM's MAXPHYADDR=52 cases before
> such hardware existed. :)
Ah, that's a very good reason to support this for shadow paging. Maybe throw
something about testing in the changelog? Without considering the testing angle,
it looks like KVM supports max=52 for !TDP just because it can, because practically
speaking there's unlikely to be a use case for exposing that much memory to a
guest when using shadow paging.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists