On 7/12/19 4:27 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
[snip] >>> >>> OK, that's our very last usable flag! Use it wisely! >>> >> >> Hmm, maybe then I missed something. I thought the flag is 64-bit and >> we have more room. Did I miss something ? > > The 64bit value written in the stream is > (the address of the page) | (the set of flags) > > so the set of usable flags depends on the minimum page alignment > of which the worst case is ARM with a TARGET_PAGE_BITS_MIN of 10 > (most others are 4k at least but that's still only 2 left). > >> Got it, thanks >> >> Currently, there are two interfaces by which we can know if we >> are dealing with encrypted guest. kvm_memcrypt_enabled() or >> MachineState->memory_encryption pointer. I did realized that >> migration code have not dealt with kvm so far. >> >> How about target/i386/sev.c exporting the migration functions and >> based on state of MachineState->memory_encryption we call the >> SEV migration routines for the encrypted pages? > > I'm migration not machine; so from my point of view the thing that's > important is making sure we've not got KVM direct dependencies in here; > if you've already got a MachineState->memory_encryption pointer then I'd > hope you could do something like: > > ret = MachineState->memory_encryption->ops->save(....) > I will look into doing something like this. thanks
