[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7bd3719e-c11d-9b52-8ae6-52603fc6a8c2@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 19:41:45 +0200
From: "Gupta, Pankaj" <pankaj.gupta@....com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
"Maciej S . Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
luto@...nel.org, jun.nakajima@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, david@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
ddutile@...hat.com, dhildenb@...hat.com,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, mhocko@...e.com,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 11/14] KVM: Register/unregister the guest private
memory regions
> Use kvm_arch_has_private_mem(), both because "has" makes it obvious this is checking
> a flag of sorts, and to align with other helpers of this nature (and with
> CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM).
>
> $ git grep kvm_arch | grep supported | wc -l
> 0
> $ git grep kvm_arch | grep has | wc -l
> 26
>
>>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM
>>>>>>> + case KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_REG_REGION:
>>>>>>> + case KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_UNREG_REGION: {
>>>>>>> + struct kvm_enc_region region;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (!kvm_arch_private_mem_supported(kvm))
>>>>>>> + goto arch_vm_ioctl;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + r = -EFAULT;
>>>>>>> + if (copy_from_user(®ion, argp, sizeof(region)))
>>>>>>> + goto out;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + r = kvm_vm_ioctl_set_encrypted_region(kvm, ioctl, ®ion);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is to store private region metadata not only the encrypted region?
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for not being clear, was suggesting name change of this function from:
>>>> "kvm_vm_ioctl_set_encrypted_region" to "kvm_vm_ioctl_set_private_region"
>>>
>>> Though I don't have strong reason to change it, I'm fine with this and
>>
>> Yes, no strong reason, just thought "kvm_vm_ioctl_set_private_region" would
>> depict the actual functionality :)
>>
>>> this name matches the above kvm_arch_private_mem_supported perfectly.
>> BTW could not understand this, how "kvm_vm_ioctl_set_encrypted_region"
>> matches "kvm_arch_private_mem_supported"?
>
> Chao is saying that kvm_vm_ioctl_set_private_region() pairs nicely with
> kvm_arch_private_mem_supported(), not that the "encrypted" variant pairs nicely.
>
> I also like using "private" instead of "encrypted", though we should probably
> find a different verb than "set", because calling "set_private" when making the
> region shared is confusing. I'm struggling to come up with a good alternative
> though.
>
> kvm_vm_ioctl_set_memory_region() is already taken by KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION,
> and that also means that anything with "memory_region" in the name is bound to be
> confusing.
>
> Hmm, and if we move away from "encrypted", it probably makes sense to pass in
> addr+size instead of a kvm_enc_region.
>
> Maybe this?
>
> static int kvm_vm_ioctl_set_or_clear_mem_private(struct kvm *kvm, gpa_t gpa,
> gpa_t size, bool set_private)
>
> and then:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM
> case KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_REG_REGION:
> case KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_UNREG_REGION: {
> bool set = ioctl == KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_REG_REGION;
> struct kvm_enc_region region;
>
> if (!kvm_arch_private_mem_supported(kvm))
> goto arch_vm_ioctl;
>
> r = -EFAULT;
> if (copy_from_user(®ion, argp, sizeof(region)))
> goto out;
>
> r = kvm_vm_ioctl_set_or_clear_mem_private(kvm, region.addr,
> region.size, set);
> break;
> }
> #endif
>
> I don't love it, so if someone has a better idea...
Both the suggestions look good to me. Bring more clarity.
Thanks,
Pankaj
Powered by blists - more mailing lists