From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.skyhub.de (mail.skyhub.de [5.9.137.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C70C33D2 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2022 12:26:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zn.tnic (p5de8e9fe.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.232.233.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id EF42D1EC0715; Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:26:31 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1671711992; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=77VLJhO0dwLBle+8mUKiXvGfN/pazGch3mXeBUAPVPY=; b=lOSb1jh+bt4haey43HIMtwFGaW08ydiHmgjk3xxfbBWGiMNXQk23xbiaUrYp90mvplWzPC 2cHavs6VQEbZKGtynRweI+uHTVpXwFpzR2Lgv9R4Cva7Z+lS7RngC04mX3HhMe13k7ZmiS JrnB9euVlgqs+68jIwsnpPYeoeI8Eik= Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:26:25 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Michael Roth Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, jroedel@suse.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, hpa@zytor.com, ardb@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com, luto@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, slp@redhat.com, pgonda@google.com, peterz@infradead.org, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, rientjes@google.com, dovmurik@linux.ibm.com, tobin@ibm.com, vbabka@suse.cz, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, marcorr@google.com, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, alpergun@google.com, dgilbert@redhat.com, jarkko@kernel.org, ashish.kalra@amd.com, harald@profian.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v7 02/64] KVM: x86: Add KVM_CAP_UNMAPPED_PRIVATE_MEMORY Message-ID: References: <20221214194056.161492-1-michael.roth@amd.com> <20221214194056.161492-3-michael.roth@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-coco@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221214194056.161492-3-michael.roth@amd.com> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Michael Roth wrote: > This mainly indicates to KVM that it should expect all private guest > memory to be backed by private memslots. Ideally this would work > similarly for others archs, give or take a few additional flags, but > for now it's a simple boolean indicator for x86. ... > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h > index c7e9d375a902..cc9424ccf9b2 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h > @@ -1219,6 +1219,7 @@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt { > #define KVM_CAP_DIRTY_LOG_RING_ACQ_REL 223 > #define KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED_ASYNC_DISABLE 224 > #define KVM_CAP_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES 225 > +#define KVM_CAP_UNMAPPED_PRIVATE_MEM 240 Isn't this new cap supposed to be documented somewhere in Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst ? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette