Re: [Invitation] bi-weekly guest_memfd upstream call on 2025-04-17

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 17.04.25 04:46, Chenyi Qiang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/16/2025 7:58 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> our next guest_memfd upstream call is scheduled for Thursday,
>> 2025-04-17 at 8:00 - 9:00am (GMT-07:00) Pacific Time - Vancouver.
>>
>> We'll be using the following Google meet:
>> http://meet.google.com/wxp-wtju-jzw
>>
>> The meeting notes can be found at [1], where we also link recordings and
>> collect current guest_memfd upstream proposals. If you want an google
>> calendar invitation that also covers all future meetings, just write me
>> a mail.
>>
>>
>> If nothing else comes up, let's talk about the next steps to get basic
>> mmap support [2] ready for upstream, to prepare for actual in-place
>> conversion, direct-map removal and much more.
>>
>> In particular, let's talk about what "basic mmap support" is, and what
>> we can use it for without actual in-place conversion: IIUC "only shared
>> memory in guest_memfd" use cases and some cases of software-protected
>> VMs can use it.
>>
>> Also, let's talk about the relationship/expectations between guest_memfd
>> and the user (mmap) address when it comes to KVM memory slots that have
>> a guest_memfd that supports "shared" memory.
>>
>>
>> To put something to discuss onto the agenda, reply to this mail or add
>> them to the "Topics/questions for next meeting(s)" section in the
>> meeting notes as a comment.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M6766BzdY1Lhk7LiR5IqVR8B8mG3cr-
>> cxTxOrAosPOk/edit?usp=sharing
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250318161823.4005529-1-
>> tabba@google.com/T/#u
>>
> 
> Hi David,
> 

Hi,

> If we have time, I'd like to discuss about my v4 posting of shared
> device assignment support
> (https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20250407074939.18657-1-chenyi.qiang@intel.com/)
> which introduces a new abstract parent class of RamDiscardManager, and a
> new priority listener to apply to in-place conversion. Hope to get some
> suggestion or confirmation if I'm in the correct direction.

yes we can discuss that (and it's on my todo list as well to review). I 
suspect that it's mostly review that's missing at that point, and that 
it is conceptually ok.

Interestingly, I might be looking into virtio-mem support for 
confidential VMs at some point; I'll have to figure out how to allow for 
more states then :)

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb