> +int __kvm_mmu_map_gpa(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t *startp, gfn_t end, > + bool map_private) > +{ > + gfn_t start = *startp; > + int attr; > + int ret; > + > + if (!kvm_gfn_shared_mask(kvm)) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + attr = map_private ? KVM_MEM_ATTR_PRIVATE : KVM_MEM_ATTR_SHARED; > + start = start & ~kvm_gfn_shared_mask(kvm); > + end = end & ~kvm_gfn_shared_mask(kvm); > + > + /* > + * To make the following kvm_vm_set_mem_attr() success within spinlock > + * without memory allocation. > + */ > + ret = kvm_vm_reserve_mem_attr(kvm, start, end); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + write_lock(&kvm-> mmu_lock); > + if (is_tdp_mmu_enabled(kvm)) { > + gfn_t s = start; > + > + ret = kvm_tdp_mmu_map_gpa(kvm, &s, end, map_private); > + if (!ret) { > + KVM_BUG_ON(kvm_vm_set_mem_attr(kvm, attr, start, end), kvm); This will result in no exits to userspace during memory conversion requests from guests. And as a result, userspace will not be able to explicitly back/unback shared/private memory during conversions leading to double allocation of memory. Is this an intended behavior for memory conversion with TDX VMs as per earlier discussion? > + } else if (ret == -EAGAIN) { > + KVM_BUG_ON(kvm_vm_set_mem_attr(kvm, attr, start, s), kvm); > + start = s; > + } > + } else { > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP; > + } > + write_unlock(&kvm-> mmu_lock); > + > + if (ret == -EAGAIN) { > + if (map_private)