On Tue, 18 May 2021 17:36:24 +0200 Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 18 May 2021 17:05:37 +0200 > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 May 2021 22:07:47 +0200 > > Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This means that the same address space can have memory belonging to > > > more than one protected guest, although only one will be running, > > > the others will in fact not even have any CPUs. > > > > Are those set-aside-but-not-yet-cleaned-up pages still possibly > > accessible in any way? I would assume that they only belong to the > > in case of reboot: yes, they are still in the address space of the > guest, and can be swapped if needed > > > 'zombie' guests, and any new or rebooted guest is a new entity that > > needs to get new pages? > > the rebooted guest (normal or secure) will re-use the same pages of the > old guest (before or after cleanup, which is the reason of patches 3 > and 4) Took a look at those patches, makes sense. > > the KVM guest is not affected in case of reboot, so the userspace > address space is not touched. 'guest' is a bit ambiguous here -- do you mean the vm here, and the actual guest above?
