On Wed, May 08, 2024, Xiaoyao Li wrote: > On 4/25/2024 12:55 AM, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote: > > One of the TDX module features is called MAXPA_VIRT. In short, it is similar to > > KVM’s allow_smaller_maxphyaddr. It requires an explicit opt-in by the VMM, and > > allows a TD’s 0x80000008.EAX[7:0] to be configured by the VMM. Accesses to > > physical addresses above the specified value by the TD will cause the TDX module > > to inject a mostly correct #PF with the RSVD error code set. It has to deal with > > the same problems as allow_smaller_maxphyaddr for correctly setting the RSVD > > bit. I wasn’t thinking to push this feature for KVM due the movement away from > > allow_smaller_maxphyaddr and towards 0x80000008.EAX[23:16]. > > > > I would like to get your opinion of the MAXPA_VIRT feature of TDX. What is > likely the KVM's decision on it? Won't support it due to it has the same > limitation of allow_smaller_maxphyaddr? Not supporting MAXPA_VIRT has my vote. I'm of the opinion that allow_smaller_maxphyaddr should die a horrible, fiery death :-)
