Re: [PATCH 2/7] guest_memfd: Introduce an object to manage the guest-memfd with RamDiscardManager

[Xu Yilun]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 05:00:22AM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > > 
> > > https://github.com/aik/qemu/commit/3663f889883d4aebbeb0e4422f7be5e357e2ee46
> > > 
> > > but I am not sure if this ever saw the light of the day, did not it?
> > > (ironically I am using it as a base for encrypted DMA :) )
> > 
> > Yeah, we are doing the same work. I saw a solution from Michael long
> > time ago (when there was still
> > a dedicated hostmem-memfd-private backend for restrictedmem/gmem)
> > (https://github.com/AMDESE/qemu/commit/3bf5255fc48d648724d66410485081ace41d8ee6)
> > 
> > For your patch, it only implement the interface for
> > HostMemoryBackendMemfd. Maybe it is more appropriate to implement it for
> > the parent object HostMemoryBackend, because besides the
> > MEMORY_BACKEND_MEMFD, other backend types like MEMORY_BACKEND_RAM and
> > MEMORY_BACKEND_FILE can also be guest_memfd-backed.
> > 
> > Think more about where to implement this interface. It is still
> > uncertain to me. As I mentioned in another mail, maybe ram device memory
> > region would be backed by guest_memfd if we support TEE IO iommufd MMIO
> 
> It is unlikely an assigned MMIO region would be backed by guest_memfd or be
> implemented as part of HostMemoryBackend. Nowadays assigned MMIO resource is
> owned by VFIO types, and I assume it is still true for private MMIO.
> 
> But I think with TIO, MMIO regions also need conversion. So I support an
> object, but maybe not guest_memfd_manager.

Sorry, I mean the name only covers private memory, but not private MMIO.

> 
> Thanks,
> Yilun
> 
> > in future. Then a specific object is more appropriate. What's your opinion?
> > 
>