Re: Writable module parameters in KVM

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

On 26/05/21 17:44, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> Sure, making them writable is okay.
>
> making a param writable (new or existing) must come with strong
> justification for taking on the extra complexity.

I agree.  It's the same for every change, and it's the reason why most 
parameters are read-only: no justification for the extra complexity. 
But if somebody has a usecase, it can be considered.

> Making 'npt' writable is probably feasible ('ept' would be beyond messy), but I
> strongly prefer to keep it read-only.  The direct impacts on the MMU and SVM
> aren't too bad, but NPT is required for SEV and VLS, affects kvm_cpu_caps, etc...
> And, no offense to win98, there's isn't a strong use case because outside of
> personal usage, the host admin/VMM doesn't know that the guest will be running a
> broken kernel.

Making 'npt' writable would be beyond messy too; allowing select VMs to 
disable EPT/NPT might be simpler, but not that much.  I can't say 
offhand if the code would be ugly or not.

Paolo