Re: [RFC PATCH v11 12/29] KVM: Add KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD ioctl() for guest-specific backing memory
From: Elliot Berman <hidden>
Date: 2023-07-26 17:20:10
Also in:
kvm, kvm-riscv, kvmarm, linux-fsdevel, linux-mips, linux-mm, linux-riscv, linux-security-module, lkml
On 7/18/2023 4:44 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
TODO
<snip>
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/magic.h b/include/uapi/linux/magic.h index 6325d1d0e90f..15041aa7d9ae 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/magic.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/magic.h@@ -101,5 +101,6 @@ #define DMA_BUF_MAGIC 0x444d4142 /* "DMAB" */ #define DEVMEM_MAGIC 0x454d444d /* "DMEM" */ #define SECRETMEM_MAGIC 0x5345434d /* "SECM" */ +#define GUEST_MEMORY_MAGIC 0x474d454d /* "GMEM" */
Should this be: #define GUEST_MEMORY_KVM_MAGIC or KVM_GUEST_MEMORY_KVM_MAGIC? BALLOON_KVM_MAGIC is KVM-specific few lines above. --- Originally, I was planning to use the generic guest memfd infrastructure to support Gunyah hypervisor, however I see that's probably not going to be possible now that the guest memfd implementation is KVM-specific. I think this is good for both KVM and Gunyah as there will be some Gunyah specifics and some KVM specifics in each of implementation, as you mentioned in the previous series. I'll go through series over next week or so and I'll try to find how much similar Gunyah guest mem fd implementation would be and we can see if it's better to pull whatever that ends up being into a common implementation? We could also agree to have completely divergent fd implementations like we do for the UAPI. Thoughts? Thanks, Elliot <snip>