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;
Date:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:08:34 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Nathan Tempelman <natet@google.com>,
        Thomas Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Steve Rutherford <srutherford@google.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Ashish Kalra <Ashish.Kalra@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] KVM: x86: Support KVM VMs sharing SEV context
Message-ID: <YFD0IuaMACWZyGtG@google.com>
References: <20210224085915.28751-1-natet@google.com>
 <YDaOw48Ug7Tgr+M6@google.com>
 <CAKiEG5qtTbm8dtE3pZDy_rfSfTfvhCYhDCh2DD-uh2w6xZnvcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YFDwU3CC/DgRo6Vk@google.com>
 <df2e2cd9-18d5-f35e-6c05-5ba0c399ccbe@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <df2e2cd9-18d5-f35e-6c05-5ba0c399ccbe@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 16/03/21 18:52, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > I don't
> > > know that holding the fd instead of the kvm makes that much better though,
> > > are there advantages to that I'm not seeing?
> > If there's no kvm pointer, it's much more difficult for someone to do the wrong
> > thing, and any such shenanigans stick out like a sore thumb in patches, which
> > makes reviewing future changes easier.
> 
> On the other hand holding the fd open complicates the code, reference
> counting rules are already hard enough.

How so?  KVM already has to do "fget(source_kvm)", can't we just hold onto to
that instead of doing an additional kvm_get_kvm()?