Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
From:   Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <27d414c3-095b-3304-f99e-72c105a30ac0@xen.org>
Date:   Mon, 18 Sep 2023 15:14:50 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.0
Reply-To: paul@xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/12] KVM: selftests / xen: don't explicitly set the
 vcpu_info address
Content-Language: en-US
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@gmail.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Paul Durrant <pdurrant@amazon.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
References: <20230918112148.28855-1-paul@xen.org>
 <20230918112148.28855-12-paul@xen.org>
 <f649285c0973ec59180ed51c4ee10cdc51279505.camel@infradead.org>
 <56dad458-8816-2de5-544e-a5e50c5ad2a2@xen.org>
 <c9a1961812b0cbb6e9f641dec5c6edcb21482161.camel@infradead.org>
 <f5eab713-fa74-2cbc-7df5-81d8d26fee0a@xen.org>
 <425F7A5D-58D1-4D94-A88C-E7B1EAEAD084@infradead.org>
Organization: Xen Project
In-Reply-To: <425F7A5D-58D1-4D94-A88C-E7B1EAEAD084@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 18/09/2023 15:05, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18 September 2023 14:41:08 BST, Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, if the VMM is using the default then it can't unmap it. But setting a vcpu_info *after* enabling any event channels would be a very odd thing for a guest to do and IMO it gets to keep the pieces if it does so.
> 
> 
> Hm, I suppose I'm OK with that approach. The fact that both VMM implementations using this KVM/Xen support let the guest keep precisely those pieces is a testament to that :)
> 

I can have the selftest explicitly set the vcpu_info to point at the one 
that's already in use, I suppose... so the would at least make sure the 
attribute is functioning.

> But now we're hard-coding the behaviour in the kernel and declaring that no VMM will be *able* to "fix" that case even if it does want to. So perhaps it wants a modicum more thought and at least some explicit documentation to that effect?
> 
> And a hand-wavy plan at least for what we'd do if we suddenly did find a reason to care?

Handwavy plan would be for the VMM to:

a) Mask all open event channels targetting the vcpu
b) Copy vcpu_info content to the new location
c) Tell KVM where it is
d) Unmask the masked event channels

Does that sound ok? If so I can stick it in the API documentation.