Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] KVM: Support guest MAXPHYADDR < host MAXPHYADDR

[Tom Lendacky]

On 6/22/20 10:23 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 22/06/20 17:08, Mohammed Gamal wrote:
>>> Also, something to consider. On AMD, when memory encryption is 
>>> enabled (via the SYS_CFG MSR), a guest can actually have a larger
>>> MAXPHYADDR than the host. How do these patches all play into that?
> 
> As long as the NPT page tables handle the guest MAXPHYADDR just fine,
> there's no need to do anything.  I think that's the case?

Yes, it does.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
> Paolo
> 
>> Well the patches definitely don't address that case. It's assumed a
>> guest VM's MAXPHYADDR <= host MAXPHYADDR, and hence we handle the case
>> where a guests's physical address space is smaller and try to trap
>> faults that may go unnoticed by the host.
>>
>> My question is in the case of guest MAXPHYADDR > host MAXPHYADDR, do we
>> expect somehow that there might be guest physical addresses that
>> contain what the host could see as reserved bits? And how'd the host
>> handle that?
>