On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, Yan Zhao wrote:

On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 02:00:22PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, Yan Zhao wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 06:55:09PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:

quoted

+/* Set @attributes for the gfn range [@start, @end). */
+static int kvm_vm_set_mem_attributes(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start, gfn_t end,
+				     unsigned long attributes)
+{
+	struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range pre_set_range = {
+		.start = start,
+		.end = end,
+		.handler = kvm_arch_pre_set_memory_attributes,
+		.on_lock = kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin,
+		.flush_on_ret = true,
+		.may_block = true,
+	};
+	struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range post_set_range = {
+		.start = start,
+		.end = end,
+		.arg.attributes = attributes,
+		.handler = kvm_arch_post_set_memory_attributes,
+		.on_lock = kvm_mmu_invalidate_end,
+		.may_block = true,
+	};
+	unsigned long i;
+	void *entry;
+	int r = 0;
+
+	entry = attributes ? xa_mk_value(attributes) : NULL;

Also here, do we need to get existing attributes of a GFN first ?

No?  @entry is the new value that will be set for all entries.  This line doesn't
touch the xarray in any way.  Maybe I'm just not understanding your question.

Hmm, I thought this interface was to allow users to add/remove an attribute to a GFN
rather than overwrite all attributes of a GFN. Now I think I misunderstood the intention.

But I wonder if there is a way for users to just add one attribute, as I don't find
ioctl like KVM_GET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES for users to get current attributes and then to
add/remove one based on that. e.g. maybe in future, KVM wants to add one attribute in
kernel without being told by userspace ?

The plan is that memory attributes will be 100% userspace driven, i.e. that KVM
will never add its own attributes.  That's why there is (currently) no
KVM_GET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES, the intended usage model is that userspace is fully
responsible for managing attributes, and so should never need to query information
that it already knows.  If there's a compelling case for getting attributes then
we could certainly add such an ioctl(), but I hope we never need to add a GET
because that likely means we've made mistakes along the way.

Giving userspace full control of attributes allows for a simpler uAPI, e.g. if
userspace doesn't have full control, then setting or clearing bits requires a RMW
operation, which means creating a more complex ioctl().  That's why its a straight
SET operation and not an OR type operation.