Re: [RFC V1 08/10] KVM: selftests: Make ucall work with encrypted guests

[Andrew Jones]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 07:38:29AM -0600, Peter Gonda wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 9:43 AM Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I'm not a big fan of mixing the concept of encrypted guests into ucalls. I
> > think we should have two types of ucalls, those have a uc pool in memory
> > shared with the host and those that don't. Encrypted guests pick the pool
> > version.
> 
> Sean suggested this version where encrypted guests and normal guests
> used the same ucall macros/functions. I am fine with adding a second
> interface for encrypted VM ucall, do you think macros like
> ENCRYPTED_GUEST_SYNC, ENCRYPTED_GUEST_ASSERT, and
> get_encrypted_ucall() ?
>

It's fine to add new functionality to ucall in order to keep the
interfaces the same, except for initializing with some sort of indication
that the "uc pool" version is needed. I just don't like all the references
to encrypted guests inside ucall. ucall should implement uc pools without
the current motivation for uc pools creeping into its implementation.

Thanks,
drew