On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 05:00:22AM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote: > > > > > > https://github.com/aik/qemu/commit/3663f889883d4aebbeb0e4422f7be5e357e2ee46 > > > > > > but I am not sure if this ever saw the light of the day, did not it? > > > (ironically I am using it as a base for encrypted DMA :) ) > > > > Yeah, we are doing the same work. I saw a solution from Michael long > > time ago (when there was still > > a dedicated hostmem-memfd-private backend for restrictedmem/gmem) > > (https://github.com/AMDESE/qemu/commit/3bf5255fc48d648724d66410485081ace41d8ee6) > > > > For your patch, it only implement the interface for > > HostMemoryBackendMemfd. Maybe it is more appropriate to implement it for > > the parent object HostMemoryBackend, because besides the > > MEMORY_BACKEND_MEMFD, other backend types like MEMORY_BACKEND_RAM and > > MEMORY_BACKEND_FILE can also be guest_memfd-backed. > > > > Think more about where to implement this interface. It is still > > uncertain to me. As I mentioned in another mail, maybe ram device memory > > region would be backed by guest_memfd if we support TEE IO iommufd MMIO > > It is unlikely an assigned MMIO region would be backed by guest_memfd or be > implemented as part of HostMemoryBackend. Nowadays assigned MMIO resource is > owned by VFIO types, and I assume it is still true for private MMIO. > > But I think with TIO, MMIO regions also need conversion. So I support an > object, but maybe not guest_memfd_manager. Sorry, I mean the name only covers private memory, but not private MMIO. > > Thanks, > Yilun > > > in future. Then a specific object is more appropriate. What's your opinion? > > >
