On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 04:54:14PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 19:02:33 +0000, > Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > This is version six of the pKVM EL2 state series, extending the pKVM > > hypervisor code so that it can dynamically instantiate and manage VM > > data structures without the host being able to access them directly. > > These structures consist of a hyp VM, a set of hyp vCPUs and the stage-2 > > page-table for the MMU. The pages used to hold the hypervisor structures > > are returned to the host when the VM is destroyed. > > > > Previous versions are archived at: > > > > Mega-patch: https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/20220519134204.5379-1-will@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220630135747.26983-1-will@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > v3: https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/20220914083500.5118-1-will@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > v4: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20221017115209.2099-1-will@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > v5: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221020133827.5541-1-will@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > The changes since v5 include: > > > > * Fix teardown ordering so that the host 'kvm' structure remains pins > > while the memcache is being filled. > > > > * Fixed a kerneldoc typo. > > > > * Included a patch from Oliver to rework the 'pkvm_mem_transition' > > structure and it's handling of the completer address. > > > > * Tweaked some commit messages and added new R-b tags. > > > > As before, the final patch is RFC since it illustrates a very naive use > > of the new hypervisor structures and subsequent changes will improve on > > this once we have the guest private memory story sorted out. > > > > Oliver: I'm pretty sure we're going to need to revert your completer > > address cleanup as soon as we have guest-host sharing. We want to keep > > the 'pkvm_mem_transition' structure 'const', but we will only know the > > host address (PA) after walking the guest stage-2 and so we're going to > > want to track that separately. Anyway, I've included it here at the end > > so Marc can decide what he wants to do! > > Thanks, I guess... :-/ > > If this patch is going to be reverted, I'd rather not take it (without > guest/host sharing, we don't have much of a hypervisor). +1, I'm more than happy being told my patch doesn't work :) Having said that, if there are parts of the design that I've whined about that are intentional then please educate me. Some things haven't been quite as obvious, but I know you folks have been working on this feature for a while. I probably need to give the full patch-bomb another read to get all the context too. -- Thanks, Oliver
