On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 18:23, Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 16/12/2020 07:31, Haibo Xu wrote: > [...] > > Hi Steve, > > Hi Haibo > > > I have finished verifying the POC on a FVP setup, and the MTE test case can > > be migrated from one VM to another successfully. Since the test case is very > > simple which just maps one page with MTE enabled and does some memory > > access, so I can't say it's OK for other cases. > > That's great progress. > > > > > BTW, I noticed that you have sent out patch set v6 which mentions that mapping > > all the guest memory with PROT_MTE was not feasible. So what's the plan for the > > next step? Will new KVM APIs which can facilitate the tag store and recover be > > available? > > I'm currently rebasing on top of the KASAN MTE patch series. My plan for > now is to switch back to not requiring the VMM to supply PROT_MTE (so > KVM 'upgrades' the pages as necessary) and I'll add an RFC patch on the > end of the series to add an KVM API for doing bulk read/write of tags. > That way the VMM can map guest memory without PROT_MTE (so device 'DMA' > accesses will be unchecked), and use the new API for migration. > Great! Will have a try with the new API in my POC! > Thanks, > > Steve _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
