Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: x86: Add optional KVM_CAP_LIVE_MIGRATION and KVM_MIGRATE_CMD

[Kishen Maloor <kishen.maloor@intel.com>]

On 9/20/26 11:56 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 08:58:17AM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2026 at 09:33:18PM -0700, Kishen Maloor wrote:
>>> On 8/31/26 12:13 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>>
>>> I was wondering how a vendor would use kvm_transfer_buffer for a command that
>>> passes an input and also returns an output. size can describe the input
>>> length or the space available for output, not both, so the kernel has no way to
>>> know how much it may write.
>>>
>>> Two suggestions below. They're orthogonal.
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>> index 5f6c1ce9673b7..d9291a8a97bb1 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>> @@ -2010,6 +2010,8 @@ struct kvm_x86_ops {
>>>>  	int (*gmem_prepare)(struct kvm *kvm, kvm_pfn_t pfn, gfn_t gfn, int max_order);
>>>>  	void (*gmem_invalidate)(kvm_pfn_t start, kvm_pfn_t end);
>>>>  	int (*gmem_max_mapping_level)(struct kvm *kvm, kvm_pfn_t pfn, bool is_private);
>>>> +	bool (*cap_live_migration)(struct kvm *kvm);
>>>
>>> Should this return an 'int' specifying the maximum buffer size that the vendor impl
>>> requires/uses? Userspace can then learn this once.
>>
>> OK that sounds good to me. I assume you are thinking the maximum hardware
>> specific buffer size per thread? As in 512 * 4096 bytes for the TDX case?

Yeah, an upper bound on the buffer size, so 516 * 4096 (4 for the GPA+MAC lists 
and MBMD) in TDX. It could be a hint to userspace to size its buffers at the 
start. Though it would be up to userspace to decide how to use that information.

>>
>>>> +
>>>> +struct kvm_transfer_buffer {
>>>> +	__u64 address;
>>>> +	__u32 size;
>>>> +	__u32 reserved;
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> Should this struct include a 'capacity' field (u32) that is set on each command?
>>> It would be the number of bytes writable at address.
>>> size would be the input length on entry (0 if the command passes none), and the
>>> number of bytes produced on return (0 if none).
>>
>> Hmm so the transfer command return value can return how many bytes were
>> written of the input. But yeah we don't know how many bytes were written
>> back to the transfer buffer as result of the transfer command.

The transfer command return value could return how many bytes were written into the buffer.
But in an input-output call, the kernel handler wouldn't know how many bytes it could write,
or for that matter even how many pages to pin up front in case it needs to return an output
because 'size' couldn't simultaneously convey the input length and buffer capacity. That was
the gap that I thought a read-only 'capacity' field could bridge. Of course, this
assumes that the output is written in-place.

>>
>> How about if we add the bytes returned to the transfer struct? Then the
>> kvm_transfer_buffer can stay as just a buffer. 
> 
> Actually, for the possible cases with input+output, we could reserve space
> in the transfer struct for another struct kvm_transfer_buffer for the
> results?

Yes, say an 'in' and 'out' kvm_transfer_buffer inside struct kvm_migrate_cmd should
close this out and shouldn't require a 'capacity' field. Maybe we then establish this
convention:
- A non-zero 'size' on 'in' at call entry would signal that there is input.
- A non-zero 'size' on 'out' at call entry would convey the buffer capacity.
- A non-zero 'size' on 'out' at call exit would convey that there is output.
- A zeroed 'size' on 'out' at call exit would convey that there is no output.