On 1/13/2025 6:56 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.12.24 08:08, Chenyi Qiang wrote:
>> As guest_memfd is now managed by guest_memfd_manager with
>> RamDiscardManager, only block uncoordinated discard.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> system/physmem.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/system/physmem.c b/system/physmem.c
>> index 532182a6dd..585090b063 100644
>> --- a/system/physmem.c
>> +++ b/system/physmem.c
>> @@ -1872,7 +1872,7 @@ static void ram_block_add(RAMBlock *new_block,
>> Error **errp)
>> assert(kvm_enabled());
>> assert(new_block->guest_memfd < 0);
>> - ret = ram_block_discard_require(true);
>> + ret = ram_block_coordinated_discard_require(true);
>> if (ret < 0) {
>> error_setg_errno(errp, -ret,
>> "cannot set up private guest memory:
>> discard currently blocked");
>
> Would that also unlock virtio-mem by accident?
Hum, that's true. At present, the rdm in MR can only point to one
instance, thus if we unlock virtio-mem and try to use it with
guest_memfd, it would trigger assert in
memory_region_set_ram_discard_manager().
Maybe we need to add some explicit check in virtio-mem to exclude it
with guest_memfd at present?
>
