On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 12:18, Steven Price <steven.pr...@arm.com> wrote: > Ah yes, similar to (1) but much lower overhead ;) That's probably the > best option - it can be hidden in a memcpy_ignoring_tags() function. > However it still means that the VMM can't directly touch the guest's > memory which might cause issues for the VMM.
That's kind of awkward, since in general QEMU assumes it can naturally just access guest RAM[*] (eg emulation of DMAing devices, virtio, graphics display, gdb stub memory accesses). It would be nicer to be able to do it the other way around, maybe, so that the current APIs give you the "just the memory" and if you really want to do tagged accesses to guest ram you can do it with tag-specific APIs. I haven't thought about this very much though and haven't read enough of the MTE spec recently enough to make much sensible comment. So mostly what I'm trying to encourage here is that the people implementing the KVM/kernel side of this API also think about the userspace side of it, so we get one coherent design rather than a half-a-product that turns out to be awkward to use :-) [*] "guest ram is encrypted" also breaks this assumption, of course; I haven't looked at the efforts in that direction that are already in QEMU to see how they work, though. thanks -- PMM _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
