[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZU51A3U6E3aZXayC@google.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 10:22:59 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Anish Moorthy <amoorthy@...gle.com>,
David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"Mickaël Salaün" <mic@...ikod.net>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>,
Maciej Szmigiero <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
Liam Merwick <liam.merwick@...cle.com>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/34] KVM: Add KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD ioctl() for
guest-specific backing memory
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 11/6/2023 12:30 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > index 68a144cb7dbc..a6de526c0426 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -589,8 +589,20 @@ struct kvm_memory_slot {
> > u32 flags;
> > short id;
> > u16 as_id;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM
> > + struct {
> > + struct file __rcu *file;
> > + pgoff_t pgoff;
> > + } gmem;
> > +#endif
> > };
> > +static inline bool kvm_slot_can_be_private(const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot)
> > +{
> > + return slot && (slot->flags & KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD);
> > +}
> > +
>
> maybe we can move this block and ...
>
> <snip>
>
> > @@ -2355,6 +2379,30 @@ bool kvm_arch_pre_set_memory_attributes(struct kvm *kvm,
> > struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > bool kvm_arch_post_set_memory_attributes(struct kvm *kvm,
> > struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > +
> > +static inline bool kvm_mem_is_private(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn)
> > +{
> > + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM) &&
> > + kvm_get_memory_attributes(kvm, gfn) & KVM_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTE_PRIVATE;
> > +}
> > +#else
> > +static inline bool kvm_mem_is_private(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn)
> > +{
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > #endif /* CONFIG_KVM_GENERIC_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES */
>
> this block to Patch 18?
It would work, but my vote is to keep them here to minimize the changes to common
KVM code in the x86 enabling. It's not a strong preference though. Of course,
at this point, fiddling with this sort of thing is probably a bad idea in terms
of landing guest_memfd.
> > @@ -4844,6 +4875,10 @@ static int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension_generic(struct kvm *kvm, long arg)
> > #ifdef CONFIG_KVM_GENERIC_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES
> > case KVM_CAP_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES:
> > return kvm_supported_mem_attributes(kvm);
> > +#endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM
> > + case KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD:
> > + return !kvm || kvm_arch_has_private_mem(kvm);
> > #endif
> > default:
> > break;
> > @@ -5277,6 +5312,18 @@ static long kvm_vm_ioctl(struct file *filp,
> > case KVM_GET_STATS_FD:
> > r = kvm_vm_ioctl_get_stats_fd(kvm);
> > break;
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM
> > + case KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD: {
> > + struct kvm_create_guest_memfd guest_memfd;
>
> Do we need a guard of below?
>
> r = -EINVAL;
> if (!kvm_arch_has_private_mem(kvm))
> goto out;
Argh, yeah, that's weird since KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD says "not supported" if the
VM doesn't support private memory.
Enforcing that would break guest_memfd_test.c though. And having to create a
"special" VM just to test basic guest_memfd functionality would be quite
annoying.
So my vote is to do:
case KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD:
return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM);
There's no harm to KVM if userspace creates a file it can't use, and at some
point KVM will hopefully support guest_memfd irrespective of private memory.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists