On 1/10/2025 5:50 AM, Xu Yilun wrote: > 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. So you suggest renaming the object to cover the private MMIO. Then how about page_conversion_manager, or page_attribute_manager? > >> >> Thanks, >> Yilun >> >>> in future. Then a specific object is more appropriate. What's your opinion? >>> >>
