On 10/31/22 5:08 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 2022-10-28 17:51, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022, Gavin Shan wrote:
On 10/28/22 2:30 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 18:44:51 +0100,
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 18:47:12 +0100, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
It's really a 'major surgery' and I would like to make sure I fully understand
'a completely separate API for writing guest memory without an associated vCPU",
before I'm going to working on v7 for this.
There are 7 functions and 2 macros involved as below. I assume Sean is suggesting
to add another argument, whose name can be 'has_vcpu', for these functions and macros?
No.
As March suggested, for your series just implement the hacky arch opt-out, don't
Please call me April.
try and do surgery at this time as that's likely going to be a
months-long effort
that touches a lot of cross-arch code.
E.g. I believe the ARM opt-out (opt-in?) for the above hack would be
bool kvm_arch_allow_write_without_running_vcpu(struct kvm *kvm)
{
return vgic_has_its(kvm);
}
Although that will probably lead to the expected effect,
this helper should only return true when the ITS is actively
dumped.
Thanks, Marc. It makes sense to return true only when vgic/its tables
are being saved. Lets have more discussion in PATCH[v7 5/9] since Oliver
has other concerns there :)
Thanks,
Gavin
