On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:03:08 +1100
David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:24:25PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:58:06 +1100
> > David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > While we've abstracted some (potential) differences between mechanisms for
> > > securing guest memory, the initialization is still specific to SEV. Given
> > > that, move it into x86's kvm_arch_init() code, rather than the generic
> > > kvm_init() code.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > accel/kvm/kvm-all.c | 14 --------------
> > > accel/kvm/sev-stub.c | 4 ++--
> > > target/i386/kvm/kvm.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > target/i386/sev.c | 7 ++++++-
> > > 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > >
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > > @@ -2135,6 +2136,17 @@ int kvm_arch_init(MachineState *ms, KVMState *s)
> > > uint64_t shadow_mem;
> > > int ret;
> > > struct utsname utsname;
> > > + Error *local_err = NULL;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * if memory encryption object is specified then initialize the
> > > + * memory encryption context (no-op otherwise)
> > > + */
> > > + ret = sev_kvm_init(ms->cgs, &local_err);
> >
> > Maybe still leave a comment here, as the code will still need to be
> > modified to handle non-SEV x86 mechanisms?
>
> Uh.. I'm confused.. this hunk is adding a comment, not removing one..
Yes, but there was a "TODO: handle non-SEV" comment before. This will
probably need some massaging if we add Intel mechanisms?
>
> >
> > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > + error_report_err(local_err);
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > if (!kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING)) {
> > > error_report("kvm: KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING not supported by KVM");
Attachment:
pgpZ9nxQjjbih.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
