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;
Message-ID: <775667ae-3e82-bba1-d1af-e11d04ddb03d@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:22:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.1.0
Subject: Re: [RFC 02/16] KVM: selftests: add hooks for managing encrypted
 guest memory
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>,
        Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Nathan Tempelman <natet@google.com>,
        Marc Orr <marcorr@google.com>,
        Steve Rutherford <srutherford@google.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@suse.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
References: <20211005234459.430873-1-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <20211005234459.430873-3-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <CAL715W+-H7ZSQZeZmAbbJNGKaZCNqf4VdLismivxux=gerFuDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211021033723.tfnhazbnlz4z5czl@amd.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211021033723.tfnhazbnlz4z5czl@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 21/10/21 05:37, Michael Roth wrote:
>> Do we have to make a copy for the sparsebit? Why not just return the
>> pointer? By looking at your subsequent patches, I find that this data
>> structure seems to be just read-only?
> Yes, it's only intended to be used for read access. But I'll if I can
> enforce that without the need to use a copy.
> 

Return it as a const pointer?

Paolo