diff options
| author | Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> | 2026-09-23 09:37:21 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> | 2026-09-26 00:39:55 -0400 |
| commit | 93de2a6a4b91b72607136dd656edf03fb399d27f (patch) | |
| tree | 9220c76eb23cb39a146fac9692ee69afa4aa3135 /Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst | |
| download | linux-stable-93de2a6a4b91b72607136dd656edf03fb399d27f.tar.gz linux-stable-93de2a6a4b91b72607136dd656edf03fb399d27f.zip | |
KVM: SEV: Do cache maintenance on the source VM during intra-host migrationgrafted
Manually perform cache maintenance on the source VM during intra-host
migration to ensure no stale data is left in CPU caches after the VM is
destroyed. Because the source VM is "converted" to a non-SEV VM, KVM's
memory reclaim flows won't trigger cache maintenance, e.g. when all guest
memory is reclaimed in response to detaching from the mmu_notifier.
Note, relying on the destination VM to do cache maintenance isn't an option
as KVM doesn't require identical guest memory configurations, i.e. the
source VM may have access to memory that the destination VM does not.
Enforcing equivalent memory configurations is infeasible, as it would
require a *deep* comparison of memslots, e.g. to verify that not only are
the memslot identical, but what the memslots point at is also identical.
Fixes: b56639318bb2 ("KVM: SEV: Add support for SEV intra host migration")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Stefan Teodorescu <fane@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Message-ID: <20260923163721.1584779-3-seanjc@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst | 69 |
1 files changed, 69 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst b/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..13ab13984 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) + +========== +Guidelines +========== + +This document describes the general project guidelines that apply to nova-core +and nova-drm. + +Language +======== + +The Nova project uses the Rust programming language. In this context, all rules +of the Rust for Linux project as documented in +:doc:`../../rust/general-information` apply. Additionally, the following rules +apply. + +- Unless technically necessary otherwise (e.g. uAPI), any driver code is written + in Rust. + +- Unless technically necessary, unsafe Rust code must be avoided. In case of + technical necessity, unsafe code should be isolated in a separate component + providing a safe API for other driver code to use. + +Style +----- + +All rules of the Rust for Linux project as documented in +:doc:`../../rust/coding-guidelines` apply. + +For a submit checklist, please also see the `Rust for Linux Submit checklist +addendum <https://rust-for-linux.com/contributing#submit-checklist-addendum>`_. + +Documentation +============= + +The availability of proper documentation is essential in terms of scalability, +accessibility for new contributors and maintainability of a project in general, +but especially for a driver running as complex hardware as Nova is targeting. + +Hence, adding documentation of any kind is very much encouraged by the project. + +Besides that, there are some minimum requirements. + +- Every non-private structure needs at least a brief doc comment explaining the + semantical sense of the structure, as well as potential locking and lifetime + requirements. It is encouraged to have the same minimum documentation for + non-trivial private structures. + +- uAPIs must be fully documented with kernel-doc comments; additionally, the + semantical behavior must be explained including potential special or corner + cases. + +- The APIs connecting the 1st level driver (nova-core) with 2nd level drivers + must be fully documented. This includes doc comments, potential locking and + lifetime requirements, as well as example code if applicable. + +- Abbreviations must be explained when introduced; terminology must be uniquely + defined. + +- Register addresses, layouts, shift values and masks must be defined properly; + unless obvious, the semantical sense must be documented. This only applies if + the author is able to obtain the corresponding information. + +Acceptance Criteria +=================== + +- Patches must only be applied if reviewed by at least one other person on the + mailing list; this also applies for maintainers. |
