Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2023 15:16:46 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        jroedel@suse.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        ardb@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com,
        luto@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, slp@redhat.com,
        pgonda@google.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, rientjes@google.com,
        dovmurik@linux.ibm.com, tobin@ibm.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
        kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
        marcorr@google.com, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com,
        alpergun@google.com, dgilbert@redhat.com, jarkko@kernel.org,
        ashish.kalra@amd.com, harald@profian.com,
        Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@amd.com>,
        chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v7 03/64] KVM: SVM: Advertise private memory support
 to KVM
Message-ID: <Y8FnzpJyPMYDl0CA@zn.tnic>
References: <20221214194056.161492-1-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <20221214194056.161492-4-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <Y6Xd0ruz3kMij/5F@zn.tnic>
 <20230105021419.rs23nfq44rv64tsd@amd.com>
 <Y7bnE5bTUb6fQiX/@zn.tnic>
 <20230105181741.q6mq37gvcjk5nbjg@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230105181741.q6mq37gvcjk5nbjg@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 12:17:41PM -0600, Michael Roth wrote:
> In the case of SEV, it would still be up to userspace whether or not it
> actually wants to make use of UPM functionality like KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES
> and private memslots. Otherwise, to maintain backward-compatibility, 
> userspace can do things as it has always done and continue running SEV without
> relying on private memslots/KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES or any of the new ioctls.
> 
> For SNP however it is required that userspace uses/implements UPM
> functionality.

Makes sense to me.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette