| Message ID | 20200521034304.340040-14-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Refactor configuration of guest memory protection | expand |
On 5/20/20 8:42 PM, David Gibson wrote: > When the "memory-encryption" property is set, we also disable KSM > merging for the guest, since it won't accomplish anything. > > We want that, but doing it in the property set function itself is > thereoretically incorrect, in the unlikely event of some configuration > environment that set the property then cleared it again before > constructing the guest. > > But more important, it makes some other cleanups we want more > difficult. So, instead move this logic to machine_run_board_init() > conditional on the final value of the property. > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> > --- > hw/core/machine.c | 17 +++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> r~
diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c index bb3a7b18b1..e75f0b73d0 100644 --- a/hw/core/machine.c +++ b/hw/core/machine.c @@ -429,14 +429,6 @@ static void machine_set_memory_encryption(Object *obj, const char *value, g_free(ms->memory_encryption); ms->memory_encryption = g_strdup(value); - - /* - * With memory encryption, the host can't see the real contents of RAM, - * so there's no point in it trying to merge areas. - */ - if (value) { - machine_set_mem_merge(obj, false, errp); - } } static bool machine_get_nvdimm(Object *obj, Error **errp) @@ -1129,6 +1121,15 @@ void machine_run_board_init(MachineState *machine) } } + if (machine->memory_encryption) { + /* + * With guest memory protection, the host can't see the real + * contents of RAM, so there's no point in it trying to merge + * areas. + */ + machine_set_mem_merge(OBJECT(machine), false, &error_abort); + } + machine_class->init(machine); }
When the "memory-encryption" property is set, we also disable KSM merging for the guest, since it won't accomplish anything. We want that, but doing it in the property set function itself is thereoretically incorrect, in the unlikely event of some configuration environment that set the property then cleared it again before constructing the guest. But more important, it makes some other cleanups we want more difficult. So, instead move this logic to machine_run_board_init() conditional on the final value of the property. Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> --- hw/core/machine.c | 17 +++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)