On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 7:56 AM Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 07:38:29AM -0600, Peter Gonda wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 9:43 AM Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I'm not a big fan of mixing the concept of encrypted guests into ucalls. I > > > think we should have two types of ucalls, those have a uc pool in memory > > > shared with the host and those that don't. Encrypted guests pick the pool > > > version. > > > > Sean suggested this version where encrypted guests and normal guests > > used the same ucall macros/functions. I am fine with adding a second > > interface for encrypted VM ucall, do you think macros like > > ENCRYPTED_GUEST_SYNC, ENCRYPTED_GUEST_ASSERT, and > > get_encrypted_ucall() ? > > > > It's fine to add new functionality to ucall in order to keep the > interfaces the same, except for initializing with some sort of indication > that the "uc pool" version is needed. I just don't like all the references > to encrypted guests inside ucall. ucall should implement uc pools without > the current motivation for uc pools creeping into its implementation. Ah that makes sense. So maybe instead of checking for 'if (vm->memcrypt.enabled)' I should just add a new field in kvm_vm to select for use of the uc pool? Something like kvm_vm.enable_uc_pool? Thanks Drew!
