On 10.08.26 10:25, Graf (AWS), Alexander wrote:
On 10.08.26 10:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 07:39:02AM +0000, Graf (AWS), Alexander wrote:
quoted
Hey Michael,
Thanks a bunch for having a detailed and quick look!
On 10.08.26 08:23, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Sun, Aug 09, 2026 at 06:19:58PM +0000, Alexander Graf wrote:
quoted
Virtio drivers use guest memory to back virtqueues and their buffers.
That means a VMM needs to be able to map guest memory. That is ok in the
normal virt case. It gets icky with confidential computing (where we use
swiotlb as workaround) and it defeats the purpose of isolated vhost-user
backing devices, because they end up with full RAM access to the guest.
So instead, I'm proposing an extension to virtio which allows it to give
each virtio device its own dedicated memory region to communicate with the
host, called DMB (Device Memory Buffer). A trusted hypervisor can force
DMB to be present, which then enables safer, more isolated and resilient
communication between guest and host.
With DMB, the device provides a shared memory region that both parties
agree is the full memory map both have access to. All memory offsets
that previously would have been into guest RAM, are then offsets into
this shared memory buffer region. One nice property of this is that it
is a generic mechanism in the virtio transport layer, so higher level
drivers work unmodified.
I was exploring to use swiotlb instead to create individual pools. But
that approach has multiple downsides:
1. Swiotlb is an OS primitive which is not available in all Operating
Systems. DMB however lives in the virtio transport layer, which means we
can add support for it in any OS independent of generic layers. This
helps with Windows support.
How does it help, if you are going to put a pool in
the driver, put a pool in the driver. Maybe with virtio mem to
simplify allocation.
I'm not sure I understand the suggestion :)
I'm not sure what the problem is for windows :)
But if you want a chunk of contiguos memory that windows
does not poke at without a driver, virtio mem is that :)
quoted
quoted
quoted
2. We munge DMA space together. DMB provides a separate DMA space per
virtio device. This means we can for example implement a device in
vhost-user and give the implementing process only visibility to the DMB
region, not all of guest memory. That reduces the exposure the
vhost-user provider has, improving security.
3. Devices can opt-in. A hypervisor can choose to use standard virtio
semantics for self-implemented devices (e.g. NSM), while requiring DMB
for devices implemented by less trustworthy providers. The
non-trustworthy devices do not get any visibility into the trustworthy
ones, even with DMB in place for both.
So I am not sure whether the implication is that it's purely a software
construct. But if it is, can we extend virtio iommu to
add a way to discover and enforce trust boundaries?
And maybe translate offsets to BARs, if that is desired?
It seems to be that the result would be that we don't need fiddly
special casing in virtio ring specifically, and a lot of things like
pre-mapped dma will begin to work.
On thing I'm trying to avoid is dynamicity. Anything that dynamically
changes visibility or needs state tracking is something that can go
wrong. By keeping everything self-contained within the guest, I can
reason about what is visible and what is not easily. Especially for
confidential computing, IMHO static wins over dynamic in general.
Or did I misunderstand your suggestion?
I get this part. But we can absolutely make it static.
Let's start by replicating your functionality with virtio-iommu. So:
-device is behind virtio-iommu
-virtio-iommu tells guest "this device can only consume memory from that range,"
-and maybe: ...and translation is 1:1 with this offset
if guest does not acknowledge it will just fail?
this covers the proposal here simply by using a dedicated range
per device, right?
But look what we can easily add later: share a range
between devices, now you can move data between them with zero copies.
Isn't that better?
I don't know if "Add device emulation for virtio-mem and virtio-iommu,
including all of its state machine and tracking" is necessarily an
improvement, but let me try and prototype it.
I've been pondering about the virtio-mem idea a bit. I think you're
trying to address 2 concerns:
1) RAM should be annotated as RAM.
2) We may in the future want to allow zero-copy DMA between virtio
devices with DMB active
For 1, I tend to agree. That's why SHM is such a good fit. SHM already
has RAM properties today and virtio devices use it that way. I don't
think we need a special virtio-mem addition for that semantic.
However, virtio-mem brings in an interesting (and dangerous) other
concept into the mix: Treating shared memory and private memory as a
potentially common pool. Depending on how we implement the new
virtio-mem mode, we may end up accidentally treating that shared memory
as RAM.
That's a very undesirable design property: I want that a guest can rest
fairly assured that it only every passes data into the shared memory
area that it actively wants to. It's one of the properties that most of
today's confidential compute technologies get wrong IMHO. I've seen way
too many cases where you end up with a generic framework that happens to
declare a page shared when in reality the page actually contains a mix
of shared and private data. By clearly separating private and shared
memory, I have a clear gate of when data passes between them and can
easily reason about the secrecy of data.
for 2, I think it's an interesting use case. But it's nothing I'm
worried about today. If it comes for free, I'm happy to take it. But
looking at how much of a complicated monster we'd be creating with
virtio-mem and virtio-iommu, I am convinced it's the wrong thing to
optimize for :).
However, DMB as spec'ed does reference a "target SHM id". If we really
later see a need for shared DMA, I think we can fairly easily create an
extension that picks up your virtio-mem idea (or maybe something
different) to implement a shared target identifier instead.
As for pure virtio-iommu, I genuinely fail to see how it is an
improvement to either the code flow or the design principles I'm trying
to achieve with this. We would still need a special purpose allocator.
Or new zones, which Linux hates. And all we're gaining is yet another
device that maintains useless state which eats up resources and which
requires additional inter-connection between components to properly
describe and tie up.
Maybe I'm missing the real point you're trying to make? :)
Alex