Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-82162-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 10:50:55 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20240226180712.GF177224@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1705965634.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <97bb1f2996d8a7b828cd9e3309380d1a86ca681b.1705965635.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <Zbrj5WKVgMsUFDtb@google.com> <CALzav=diVvCJnJpuKQc7-KeogZw3cTFkzuSWu6PLAHCONJBwhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240226180712.GF177224@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
Message-ID: <Zdzdj6zcDqQJcrNx@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 064/121] KVM: TDX: Create initial guest memory
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com>
Cc: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>, isaku.yamahata@intel.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@gmail.com, 
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, erdemaktas@google.com, Sagi Shahar <sagis@google.com>, 
	Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>, chen.bo@intel.com, hang.yuan@intel.com, 
	tina.zhang@intel.com, gkirkpatrick@google.com, 
	Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 03:06:46PM -0800,
> David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com> wrote:
>=20
> > +Vipin Sharma
> >=20
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 4:21=E2=80=AFPM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@goo=
gle.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024, isaku.yamahata@intel.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The real reason for this drive-by pseudo-review is that I am hoping/w=
ishing we
> > > can turn this into a generic KVM ioctl() to allow userspace to pre-ma=
p guest
> > > memory[*].
> > >
> > > If we're going to carry non-trivial code, we might as well squeeze as=
 much use
> > > out of it as we can.
> > >
> > > Beyond wanting to shove this into KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_OP, is there any=
 reason why
> > > this is a VM ioctl() and not a vCPU ioctl()?  Very roughly, couldn't =
we use a
> > > struct like this as input to a vCPU ioctl() that maps memory, and opt=
ionally
> > > initializes memory from @source?
> > >
> > >         struct kvm_memory_mapping {
> > >                 __u64 base_gfn;
> > >                 __u64 nr_pages;
> > >                 __u64 flags;
> > >                 __u64 source;
> > >         }
> > >
> > > TDX would need to do special things for copying the source, but beyon=
d that most
> > > of the code in this function is generic.
> > >
> > > [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/65262e67-7885-971a-896d-ad9c0a760907@=
polito.it
> >=20
> > We would also be interested in such an API to reduce the guest
> > performance impact of intra-host migration.
>=20
> I introduce KVM_MEMORY_MAPPING and KVM_CAP_MEMORY_MAPPING with v19.

KVM_MEMORY_MAPPING is not a good ioctl() name.  There needs to be a verb in=
 there
somewhere, e.g. KVM_MAP_MEMORY, KVM_FAULTIN_MEMORY, etc.

> We can continue the discussion there.

No, we absolutely cannot continue the conversation there.   That is not how=
 kernel
development works.

Enough is enough.  I am archiving v19 and not touching it.

Please post an RFC for _just_ this functionality, and follow-up in existing=
,
pre-v19 conversations for anything else that changed between v18 and v19 an=
d might
need additional input/discussion.