Re: [PATCH v7 03/14] mm: Introduce memfile_notifier

+CC Fuad On Wednesday 10 Aug 2022 at 14:38:43 (+), Sean Christopherson wrote: > > I understand Sean's suggestion about abstracting, but if the new name > > makes it harder to grasp and there isn't really an alternative to memfd > > in sight, I'm not so sure I enjoy the tried abstraction here.

Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

On Thursday 28 Apr 2022 at 20:29:52 (+0800), Chao Peng wrote: > > + Michael in case he has comment from SEV side. > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 07:52:38AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022, at 6:40 AM, Chao Peng wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 09:59:37AM -0700, A

Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

On Tuesday 05 Apr 2022 at 10:51:36 (-0700), Andy Lutomirski wrote: > Let's try actually counting syscalls and mode transitions, at least > approximately. For non-direct IO (DMA allocation on guest side, not straight > to/from pagecache or similar): > > Guest writes to shared DMA buffer. Assume

Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

On Tuesday 05 Apr 2022 at 18:03:21 (+), Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2022, Quentin Perret wrote: > > On Monday 04 Apr 2022 at 15:04:17 (-0700), Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > >> - it can be very useful for protected VMs to do shared=>private > >

Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

On Monday 04 Apr 2022 at 15:04:17 (-0700), Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022, at 10:06 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2022, Quentin Perret wrote: > >> On Friday 01 Apr 2022 at 12:56:50 (-0700), Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> FWIW,

Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

On Friday 01 Apr 2022 at 12:56:50 (-0700), Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2022, at 7:59 AM, Quentin Perret wrote: > > On Thursday 31 Mar 2022 at 09:04:56 (-0700), Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > > To answer your original question about memory 'conversion'

Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

On Friday 01 Apr 2022 at 17:14:21 (+), Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2022, Quentin Perret wrote: > > The typical flow is as follows: > > > > - the host asks the hypervisor to run a guest; > > > > - the hypervisor does the context switch, whic

Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

On Thursday 31 Mar 2022 at 09:04:56 (-0700), Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022, at 10:58 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022, Quentin Perret wrote: > >> On Wednesday 30 Mar 2022 at 09:58:27 (+0100), Steven Price wrote: > >> > On 29

Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

On Wednesday 30 Mar 2022 at 09:58:27 (+0100), Steven Price wrote: > On 29/03/2022 18:01, Quentin Perret wrote: > > On Monday 28 Mar 2022 at 18:58:35 (+), Sean Christopherson wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022, Quentin Perret wrote: > >>> Hi Sean, > >>>

Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

On Monday 28 Mar 2022 at 18:58:35 (+), Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022, Quentin Perret wrote: > > Hi Sean, > > > > Thanks for the reply, this helps a lot. > > > > On Monday 28 Mar 2022 at 17:13:10 (+), Sean Christopherson wrote: &g

Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

Hi Sean, Thanks for the reply, this helps a lot. On Monday 28 Mar 2022 at 17:13:10 (+), Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022, Quentin Perret wrote: > > For Protected KVM (and I suspect most other confidential computing > > solutions), guests have the ability t

Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

Hi Chao, +CC Will and Marc for visibility. On Thursday 10 Mar 2022 at 22:08:58 (+0800), Chao Peng wrote: > This is the v5 of this series which tries to implement the fd-based KVM > guest private memory. The patches are based on latest kvm/queue branch > commit: > > d5089416b7fb KVM: x86: Intro

Re: [PATCH] target/arm: Fix ISR_EL1 tracking when executing at EL2

f not running in a virtualized context. > > Fixes: 636540e9c40b > Reported-by: Quentin Perret And FWIW, Tested-by: Quentin Perret Thanks Marc :) Quentin > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier > --- > target/arm/helper.c | 7 +-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)