[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <619547ad-de96-1be9-036b-a7b4e99b09a6@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:33:35 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
jun.nakajima@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
david@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/12] mm/shmem: Introduce F_SEAL_INACCESSIBLE
On 1/18/22 05:21, Chao Peng wrote:
> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
>
> Introduce a new seal F_SEAL_INACCESSIBLE indicating the content of
> the file is inaccessible from userspace through ordinary MMU access
> (e.g., read/write/mmap). However, the file content can be accessed
> via a different mechanism (e.g. KVM MMU) indirectly.
>
> It provides semantics required for KVM guest private memory support
> that a file descriptor with this seal set is going to be used as the
> source of guest memory in confidential computing environments such
> as Intel TDX/AMD SEV but may not be accessible from host userspace.
>
> At this time only shmem implements this seal.
>
I don't dislike this *that* much, but I do dislike this.
F_SEAL_INACCESSIBLE essentially transmutes a memfd into a different type
of object. While this can apparently be done successfully and without
races (as in this code), it's at least awkward. I think that either
creating a special inaccessible memfd should be a single operation that
create the correct type of object or there should be a clear
justification for why it's a two-step process.
(Imagine if the way to create an eventfd would be to call
timerfd_create() and then do a special fcntl to turn it into an eventfd
but only if it's not currently armed. This would be weird.)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists