Hi, > > > Using both private_fd and userspace_addr is only needed in TDX and other > > > confidential computing scenarios, pKVM may only use private_fd if the fd > > > can also be mmaped as a whole to userspace as Sean suggested. > > > > That does work in practice, for now at least, and is what I do in my > > current port. However, the naming and how the API is defined as > > implied by the name and the documentation. By calling the field > > private_fd, it does imply that it should not be mapped, which is also > > what api.rst says in PATCH v8 5/8. My worry is that in that case pKVM > > would be mis/ab-using this interface, and that future changes could > > cause unforeseen issues for pKVM. > > That is fairly enough. We can change the naming and the documents. > > > > > Maybe renaming this to something like "guest_fp", and specifying in > > the documentation that it can be restricted, e.g., instead of "the > > content of the private memory is invisible to userspace" something > > along the lines of "the content of the guest memory may be restricted > > to userspace". > > Some other candidates in my mind: > - restricted_fd: to pair with the mm side restricted_memfd > - protected_fd: as Sean suggested before > - fd: how it's explained relies on the memslot.flag. All these sound good, since they all capture the potential use cases. Restricted might be the most logical choice if that's going to also become the name for the mem_fd. Thanks, /fuad > Thanks, > Chao > > > > What do you think? > > > > Cheers, > > /fuad > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Chao > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > /fuad
