Hi Sean, On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 12:38 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2022, Chao Peng wrote: > > This patch series implements KVM guest private memory for confidential > > computing scenarios like Intel TDX[1]. If a TDX host accesses > > TDX-protected guest memory, machine check can happen which can further > > crash the running host system, this is terrible for multi-tenant > > configurations. The host accesses include those from KVM userspace like > > QEMU. This series addresses KVM userspace induced crash by introducing > > new mm and KVM interfaces so KVM userspace can still manage guest memory > > via a fd-based approach, but it can never access the guest memory > > content. > > > > The patch series touches both core mm and KVM code. I appreciate > > Andrew/Hugh and Paolo/Sean can review and pick these patches. Any other > > reviews are always welcome. > > - 01: mm change, target for mm tree > > - 02-09: KVM change, target for KVM tree > > A version with all of my feedback, plus reworked versions of Vishal's selftest, > is available here: > > git@xxxxxxxxxx:sean-jc/linux.git x86/upm_base_support > > It compiles and passes the selftest, but it's otherwise barely tested. There are > a few todos (2 I think?) and many of the commits need changelogs, i.e. it's still > a WIP. > > As for next steps, can you (handwaving all of the TDX folks) take a look at what > I pushed and see if there's anything horrifically broken, and that it still works > for TDX? > > Fuad (and pKVM folks) same ask for you with respect to pKVM. Absolutely no rush > (and I mean that). Thanks for sharing this. I've had a look at the patches, and have ported them to work with pKVM. At a high level, the new interface seems fine and it works with the arm64/pKVM port. I have a couple of comments regarding some of the details, but they can wait until v11 is posted. Cheers, /fuad > On my side, the two things on my mind are (a) tests and (b) downstream dependencies > (SEV and TDX). For tests, I want to build a lists of tests that are required for > merging so that the criteria for merging are clear, and so that if the list is large > (haven't thought much yet), the work of writing and running tests can be distributed. > > Regarding downstream dependencies, before this lands, I want to pull in all the > TDX and SNP series and see how everything fits together. Specifically, I want to > make sure that we don't end up with a uAPI that necessitates ugly code, and that we > don't miss an opportunity to make things simpler. The patches in the SNP series to > add "legacy" SEV support for UPM in particular made me slightly rethink some minor > details. Nothing remotely major, but something that needs attention since it'll > be uAPI. > > I'm off Monday, so it'll be at least Tuesday before I make any more progress on > my side. > > Thanks!
