On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 05:39:38PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2022, David Matlack wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 9:25 AM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 10:37:47AM +0800, Yang, Weijiang wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > > > index 4d188f056933..f375b719f565 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > > > @@ -5056,7 +5056,7 @@ kvm_calc_cpu_role(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_mmu_role_regs *regs)
> > > > > union kvm_cpu_role role = {0};
> > > > > role.base.access = ACC_ALL;
> > > > > - role.base.smm = is_smm(vcpu);
> > > > > + role.base.as_id = is_smm(vcpu);
> > > >
> > > > I'm not familiar with other architectures, is there similar conception as
> > > > x86 smm mode?
> >
> > The notion of address spaces is already existing architecture-neutral
> > concept in KVM (e.g. see uses of KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM in
> > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c), although SMM is the only use-case I'm aware of.
>
> Yes, SMM is currently the only use-case.
>
> > Architectures that do not use multiple address spaces will just leave
> > as_id is as always 0.
>
> My preference would be to leave .smm in x86's page role. IMO, defining multiple
> address spaces to support SMM emulation was a mistake that should be contained to
> SMM, i.e. should never be used for any other feature. And with CONFIG_KVM_SMM,
> even x86 can opt out.
+1
I don't think something is architecture-neutral by virtue of it existing
in virt/kvm/*.
> Emulating something like TrustZone or EL3 would be quite similar.
/me shudders
I know it is for the sake of discussion, but for posterity: please no!
--
Best,
Oliver
