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, 27 Apr 2021 22:14:05 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        srutherford@google.com, joro@8bytes.org, brijesh.singh@amd.com,
        thomas.lendacky@amd.com, venu.busireddy@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: x86: add MSR_KVM_MIGRATION_CONTROL
Message-ID: <YIiMrWS60NuesU63@google.com>
References: <20210421173716.1577745-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <20210421173716.1577745-3-pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210421173716.1577745-3-pbonzini@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Add a new MSR that can be used to communicate whether the page
> encryption status bitmap is up to date and therefore whether live
> migration of an encrypted guest is possible.
> 
> The MSR should be processed by userspace if it is going to live
> migrate the guest; the default implementation does nothing.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> ---

...

> @@ -91,6 +93,8 @@ struct kvm_clock_pairing {
>  /* MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF_INT */
>  #define KVM_ASYNC_PF_VEC_MASK			GENMASK(7, 0)
>  
> +/* MSR_KVM_MIGRATION_CONTROL */
> +#define KVM_PAGE_ENC_STATUS_UPTODATE		(1 << 0)

Why explicitly tie this to encryption status?  AFAICT, doing so serves no real
purpose and can only hurt us in the long run.  E.g. if a new use case for
"disabling" migration comes along and it has nothing to do with encryption, then
it has the choice of either using a different bit or bastardizing the existing
control.

I've no idea if such a use case is remotely likely to pop up, but allowing for
such a possibility costs us nothing.