> On 30 Jul 2025, at 11:11, Zhao Liu <zhao1....@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> @@ -91,6 +92,15 @@ static bool kvm_cpu_realizefn(CPUState *cs, Error **errp)
>> kvm_set_guest_phys_bits(cs);
>> }
>>
>> + /*
>> + * When SMM is enabled, there is 2 address spaces. Otherwise only 1.
>> + *
>> + * Only init address space 0 here, the second one for SMM is
>> initialized at
> ^^^^
> initialize
>
>> + * register_smram_listener() after machine init done.
>> + */
>> + cs->num_ases = x86_machine_is_smm_enabled(X86_MACHINE(current_machine))
>> ? 2 : 1;
>> + cpu_address_space_init(cs, 0, "cpu-mmeory", cs->memory);
>> +
>> return true;
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c
>> index 369626f8c8d7..47fb5c673c8e 100644
>> --- a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c
>> +++ b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c
>> @@ -2704,6 +2704,7 @@ static MemoryRegion smram_as_mem;
>>
>> static void register_smram_listener(Notifier *n, void *unused)
>> {
>> + CPUState *cpu;
>> MemoryRegion *smram =
>> (MemoryRegion *) object_resolve_path("/machine/smram", NULL);
>>
>> @@ -2728,6 +2729,10 @@ static void register_smram_listener(Notifier *n, void
>> *unused)
>> address_space_init(&smram_address_space, &smram_as_root, "KVM-SMRAM");
>> kvm_memory_listener_register(kvm_state, &smram_listener,
>> &smram_address_space, 1, "kvm-smram");
>> +
>> + CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
>> + cpu_address_space_init(cpu, 1, "cpu-smm", &smram_as_root);
>
> It is worth mentioning in the commit message that directly sharing
> MemoryRegion in CPUAddressSpace is safe.
>
>> + }
>
> I still think such CPU_FOREACH in machine_done callback is not the
> best approach - it's better to initialize all the address spaces in
> kvm_cpu_realizefn(), and not to go far away from cs->num_ases, as I
> said in the previous discussion.
>
> But it's still good to fix this bug. So, with other comments
> addressed,
>
> Reviewed-by: Zhao Liu <zhao1....@intel.com>
>
Tested-by: Kirill Martynov <stdcalll...@yandex-team.ru
<mailto:stdcalll...@yandex-team.ru>>
