Thread (164 messages) 164 messages, 20 authors, 2023-05-25

Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Date: 2022-08-23 18:00:07
Also in: kvm, linux-doc, linux-fsdevel, linux-kselftest, linux-mm, lkml, qemu-devel

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 19.08.22 05:38, Hugh Dickins wrote:
quoted
On Fri, 19 Aug 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, Kirill A . Shutemov wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:40:12PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
quoted
On Wed, 6 Jul 2022, Chao Peng wrote:
But since then, TDX in particular has forced an effort into preventing
(by flags, seals, notifiers) almost everything that makes it shmem/tmpfs.

Are any of the shmem.c mods useful to existing users of shmem.c? No.
Is MFD_INACCESSIBLE useful or comprehensible to memfd_create() users? No.
But QEMU and other VMMs are users of shmem and memfd.  The new features certainly
aren't useful for _all_ existing users, but I don't think it's fair to say that
they're not useful for _any_ existing users.
Okay, I stand corrected: there exist some users of memfd_create()
who will also have use for "INACCESSIBLE" memory.
As raised in reply to the relevant patch, I'm not sure if we really have
to/want to expose MFD_INACCESSIBLE to user space. I feel like this is a
requirement of specific memfd_notifer (memfile_notifier) implementations
-- such as TDX that will convert the memory and MCE-kill the machine on
ordinary write access. We might be able to set/enforce this when
registering a notifier internally instead, and fail notifier
registration if a condition isn't met (e.g., existing mmap).

So I'd be curious, which other users of shmem/memfd would benefit from
(MMU)-"INACCESSIBLE" memory obtained via memfd_create()?
I agree that there's no need to expose the inaccessible behavior via uAPI.  Making
it a kernel-internal thing that's negotiated/resolved when KVM binds to the fd
would align INACCESSIBLE with the UNMOVABLE and UNRECLAIMABLE flags (and any other
flags that get added in the future).

AFAICT, the user-visible flag is a holdover from the early RFCs and doesn't provide
any unique functionality.

If we go that route, we might want to have shmem/memfd require INACCESSIBLE to be
set for the initial implementation.  I.e. disallow binding without INACCESSIBLE
until there's a use case.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help