Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200903141122.72908-1-mgamal@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200903141122.72908-1-mgamal@redhat.com>
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:57:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CALMp9eTrc8_z3pKBtLVmbnMvC+KtzXMYbYTXZPPz5F0UWW8oNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: VMX: Make smaller physical guest address space
 support user-configurable
To:     Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@redhat.com>
Cc:     kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 7:12 AM Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> This patch exposes allow_smaller_maxphyaddr to the user as a module parameter.
>
> Since smaller physical address spaces are only supported on VMX, the parameter
> is only exposed in the kvm_intel module.
> Modifications to VMX page fault and EPT violation handling will depend on whether
> that parameter is enabled.
>
> Also disable support by default, and let the user decide if they want to enable
> it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@redhat.com>

I think a smaller guest physical address width *should* be allowed.
However, perhaps the pedantic adherence to the architectural
specification could be turned on or off per-VM? And, if we're going to
be pedantic, I think we should go all the way and get MOV-to-CR3
correct.

Does the typical guest care about whether or not setting any of the
bits 51:46 in a PFN results in a fault?