[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <03db8091-d563-402b-9eec-ad36a364e5d9@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 15:48:18 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Sean Christopherson
<seanjc@...gle.com>, Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>,
Patrick Roy <roypat@...zon.co.uk>, qperret@...gle.com,
Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm: Introduce guest_memfd
On 05.08.24 20:34, Elliot Berman wrote:
> In preparation for adding more features to KVM's guest_memfd, refactor
> and introduce a library which abstracts some of the core-mm decisions
> about managing folios associated with the file. The goal of the refactor
> serves two purposes:
>
> Provide an easier way to reason about memory in guest_memfd. With KVM
> supporting multiple confidentiality models (TDX, SEV-SNP, pKVM, ARM
> CCA), and coming support for allowing kernel and userspace to access
> this memory, it seems necessary to create a stronger abstraction between
> core-mm concerns and hypervisor concerns.
>
> Provide a common implementation for other hypervisors (Gunyah) to use.
>
> Signed-off-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>
Instead of "Introduce guest_memfd" and "Convert to use mm/guest_memfd",
I suggest a single patch that factors out guest_memfd into core-mm.
Or is there any particular reason for the split?
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists