On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 10:59:06AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2026, Peter Fang wrote: > > > Thanks David! > > > > I think I'd need at least input from the maintainers on this but just by > > code inspection, the kvm_vcpu_map() usage in sev.c seems a bit tricky. > > Unmapping doesn't happen until right before switching to the guest, so > > this might fall into the "keep the mapping around for a longer time" > > category [1]. > > It definitely falls into that category. But that code is also rather gross, > i.e. > could use some cleanup no matter what, so I don't think it's a good argument > for > keeping kvm_vcpu_map() around. > > To avoid a bunch of pointless work and churn, let's hold off on hardening > and/or > renaming kvm_vcpu_map() for now. I'll take this v2 as-is; even though taking > a > gpa instead of a gfn will conflict with the nVMX series, it's dead simple and > a > worthwhile cleanup even if some of the conversions get discarded shortly > after.
Makes sense to me. Thanks for the review Sean!
