[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b2743a3a-a1b4-2d2e-98be-87b58ad387cf@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 09:55:03 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
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, 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>,
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>,
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>, 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>,
"Gupta, Pankaj" <pankaj.gupta@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM
guest private memory
On 19.08.22 05:38, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, Kirill A . Shutemov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:40:12PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>>>> 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()?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists