On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 1:39 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022, Vishal Annapurve wrote: > > Introduce HAVE_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_TESTING config to be able to test fd based > > @@ -272,13 +274,15 @@ static inline int kvm_mmu_do_page_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t cr2_or_gpa, > > .rsvd = err & PFERR_RSVD_MASK, > > .user = err & PFERR_USER_MASK, > > .prefetch = prefetch, > > - .is_tdp = likely(vcpu->arch.mmu->page_fault == kvm_tdp_page_fault), > > + .is_tdp = is_tdp, > > .nx_huge_page_workaround_enabled = > > is_nx_huge_page_enabled(vcpu->kvm), > > > > .max_level = KVM_MAX_HUGEPAGE_LEVEL, > > .req_level = PG_LEVEL_4K, > > .goal_level = PG_LEVEL_4K, > > + .is_private = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_TESTING) && is_tdp && > > + kvm_mem_is_private(vcpu->kvm, cr2_or_gpa >> PAGE_SHIFT), > > After looking at the SNP+UPM series, I think we should forego a dedicated Kconfig > for testing and instead add a new VM type for UPM-capable guests. The new type, > e.g. KVM_X86_PROTECTED_VM, can then be used to leverage UPM for "legacy" SEV and > SEV-ES guests, as well as for UPM-capable guests that don't utilize per-VM > memory encryption, e.g. KVM selftests. > > Carrying test-only behavior is obviously never ideal, and it would pretty much have > to be mutually exclusive with "real" usage of UPM, otherwise the KVM logics gets > unnecessarily complex. Ack, the newly added VM type fits better here with SEV/SEV-ES and non-confidential selftests being able to share this framework.
