[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <04605642-cad8-1701-ff41-63f2f00ba5f6@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 13:28:34 -0700
From: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
CC: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
Prakruthi Deepak Heragu <quic_pheragu@...cinc.com>,
Murali Nalajala <quic_mnalajal@...cinc.com>,
Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <quic_svaddagi@...cinc.com>,
Carl van Schaik <quic_cvanscha@...cinc.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Bagas Sanjaya" <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
<linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <qperret@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 10/24] gunyah: vm_mgr: Add/remove user memory regions
Hi Will,
On 6/22/2023 4:56 PM, Elliot Berman wrote:
>
>
> On 6/7/2023 8:54 AM, Elliot Berman wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/5/2023 7:18 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> Hi Elliot,
>>>
>>> [+Quentin since he's looked at the MMU notifiers]
>>>
>>> Sorry for the slow response, I got buried in email during a week away.
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:02:29AM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/2023 4:59 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 01:47:47PM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
>>>>>> + ret = account_locked_vm(ghvm->mm, mapping->npages, true);
>>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>>> + goto free_mapping;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + mapping->pages = kcalloc(mapping->npages,
>>>>>> sizeof(*mapping->pages), GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
>>>>>> + if (!mapping->pages) {
>>>>>> + ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>>>> + mapping->npages = 0; /* update npages for reclaim */
>>>>>> + goto unlock_pages;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + gup_flags = FOLL_LONGTERM;
>>>>>> + if (region->flags & GH_MEM_ALLOW_WRITE)
>>>>>> + gup_flags |= FOLL_WRITE;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + pinned = pin_user_pages_fast(region->userspace_addr,
>>>>>> mapping->npages,
>>>>>> + gup_flags, mapping->pages);
>>>>>> + if (pinned < 0) {
>>>>>> + ret = pinned;
>>>>>> + goto free_pages;
>>>>>> + } else if (pinned != mapping->npages) {
>>>>>> + ret = -EFAULT;
>>>>>> + mapping->npages = pinned; /* update npages for reclaim */
>>>>>> + goto unpin_pages;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry if I missed it, but I still don't see where you reject file
>>>>> mappings
>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure, I can reject file mappings. I didn't catch that was the ask
>>>> previously
>>>> and thought it was only a comment about behavior of file mappings.
>>>
>>> I thought the mention of filesystem corruption was clear enough! It's
>>> definitely something we shouldn't allow.
>>>
>>>>> This is also the wrong interface for upstream. Please get involved
>>>>> with
>>>>> the fd-based guest memory discussions [1] and port your series to
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The user interface design for *shared* memory aligns with
>>>> KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION.
>>>
>>> I don't think it does. For example, file mappings don't work (as above),
>>> you're placing additional rlimit requirements on the caller, read-only
>>> memslots are not functional, the memory cannot be swapped or migrated,
>>> dirty logging doesn't work etc. pKVM is in the same boat, but that's why
>>> we're not upstreaming this part in its current form.
>>>
>>
>> I thought pKVM was only holding off on upstreaming changes related to
>> guest-private memory?
>>
>>>> I understood we want to use restricted memfd for giving
>>>> guest-private memory
>>>> (Gunyah calls this "lending memory"). When I went through the
>>>> changes, I
>>>> gathered KVM is using restricted memfd only for guest-private memory
>>>> and not
>>>> for shared memory. Thus, I dropped support for lending memory to the
>>>> guest
>>>> VM and only retained the shared memory support in this series. I'd
>>>> like to
>>>> merge what we can today and introduce the guest-private memory
>>>> support in
>>>> tandem with the restricted memfd; I don't see much reason to delay the
>>>> series.
>>>
>>> Right, protected guests will use the new restricted memfd ("guest mem"
>>> now, I think?), but non-protected guests should implement the existing
>>> interface *without* the need for the GUP pin on guest memory pages. Yes,
>>> that means full support for MMU notifiers so that these pages can be
>>> managed properly by the host kernel. We're working on that for pKVM, but
>>> it requires a more flexible form of memory sharing over what we
>>> currently
>>> have so that e.g. the zero page can be shared between multiple entities.
>>
>> Gunyah doesn't support swapping pages out while the guest is running
>> and the design of Gunyah isn't made to give host kernel full control
>> over the S2 page table for its guests. As best I can tell from reading
>> the respective drivers, ACRN and Nitro Enclaves both GUP pin guest
>> memory pages prior to giving them to the guest, so I don't think this
>> requirement from Gunyah is particularly unusual.
>>
>
> I read/dug into mmu notifiers more and I don't think it matches with
> Gunyah's features today. We don't allow the host to freely manage VM's
> pages because it requires the guest VM to have a level of trust on the
> host. Once a page is given to the guest, it's done for the lifetime of
> the VM. Allowing the host to replace pages in the guest memory map isn't
> part of any VM's security model that we run in Gunyah. With that
> requirement, longterm pinning looks like the correct approach to me.
Is my approach of longterm pinning correct given that Gunyah doesn't
allow host to freely swap pages?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists