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

[Chenyi Qiang]

On 1/10/2025 5:50 AM, Xu Yilun wrote:
> 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.

So you suggest renaming the object to cover the private MMIO. Then how
about page_conversion_manager, or page_attribute_manager?

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