[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZPu0/fxg1E0Yi4Gt@google.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 16:57:49 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>
Cc: isaku.yamahata@...el.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@...il.com,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, erdemaktas@...gle.com,
Sagi Shahar <sagis@...gle.com>,
David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>,
Zhi Wang <zhi.wang.linux@...il.com>, chen.bo@...el.com,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@...ux.intel.com>, David.Kaplan@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 07/10] KVM: x86: Add gmem hook for initializing
private memory
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, Michael Roth wrote:
> So we need to be able to deal with that even for 'well-behaved' guests.
> With RMP-init-during-mapping-time approach I had some checks that avoided
> creating the 2MB RMP entry in this mixed case which is why I didn't need
> handling for this previously. But it's just one extra #NPF(RMP) and can
> be handled cleanly since it can be distinguished from spurious cases.
Just to make sure you're not waiting on me for something, the TL;DR is that my
suggestion is viable and not too horrific?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists