[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220725135416.GD304216@chaop.bj.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2022 21:54:16 +0800
From: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Gupta, Pankaj" <pankaj.gupta@....com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
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>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
"Maciej S . Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
luto@...nel.org, jun.nakajima@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com, ddutile@...hat.com,
dhildenb@...hat.com, Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, mhocko@...e.com,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/14] mm: Add F_SEAL_AUTO_ALLOCATE seal to memfd
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 12:27:03PM +0200, Gupta, Pankaj wrote:
>
> > > Normally, a write to unallocated space of a file or the hole of a sparse
> > > file automatically causes space allocation, for memfd, this equals to
> > > memory allocation. This new seal prevents such automatically allocating,
> > > either this is from a direct write() or a write on the previously
> > > mmap-ed area. The seal does not prevent fallocate() so an explicit
> > > fallocate() can still cause allocating and can be used to reserve
> > > memory.
> > >
> > > This is used to prevent unintentional allocation from userspace on a
> > > stray or careless write and any intentional allocation should use an
> > > explicit fallocate(). One of the main usecases is to avoid memory double
> > > allocation for confidential computing usage where we use two memfds to
> > > back guest memory and at a single point only one memfd is alive and we
> > > want to prevent memory allocation for the other memfd which may have
> > > been mmap-ed previously. More discussion can be found at:
> > >
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/6/14/1255
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h | 1 +
> > > mm/memfd.c | 3 ++-
> > > mm/shmem.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> > > 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h b/include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h
> > > index 2f86b2ad6d7e..98bdabc8e309 100644
> > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h
> > > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
> > > #define F_SEAL_GROW 0x0004 /* prevent file from growing */
> > > #define F_SEAL_WRITE 0x0008 /* prevent writes */
> > > #define F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE 0x0010 /* prevent future writes while mapped */
> > > +#define F_SEAL_AUTO_ALLOCATE 0x0020 /* prevent allocation for writes */
> >
> > Why only "on writes" and not "on reads". IIRC, shmem doesn't support the
> > shared zeropage, so you'll simply allocate a new page via read() or on
> > read faults.
> >
> >
> > Also, I *think* you can place pages via userfaultfd into shmem. Not sure
> > if that would count "auto alloc", but it would certainly bypass fallocate().
>
> I was also thinking this at the same time, but for different reason:
>
> "Want to populate private preboot memory with firmware payload", so was
> thinking userfaulftd could be an option as direct writes are restricted?
If that can be a side effect, I definitely glad to see it, though I'm
still not clear how userfaultfd can be particularly helpful for that.
Chao
>
> Thanks,
> Pankaj
>
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists