linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] KVM: Rework KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_MMAP into KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aOQkaJ05FjsZz7yn@google.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 13:19:52 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>, 
	Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, 
	Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] KVM: Rework KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_MMAP into KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS

On Mon, Oct 06, 2025, Ackerley Tng wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> writes:
> 
> > Rework the not-yet-released KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_MMAP into a more generic
> > KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS capability so that adding new flags doesn't
> > require a new capability, and so that developers aren't tempted to bundle
> > multiple flags into a single capability.
> >
> > Note, kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension_generic() can only return a 32-bit
> > value, but that limitation can be easily circumvented by adding e.g.
> > KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS2 in the unlikely event guest_memfd supports more
> > than 32 flags.
> 
> I know you suggested that guest_memfd's HugeTLB sizes shouldn't be
> squashed into the flags. Just using that as an example, would those
> kinds of flags (since they're using the upper bits, above the lower 32
> bits) be awkward to represent in this new model?

Are you asking specifically about flags that use bits 63:32?  If so, no, I don't
see those as being awkward to deal with.  Hopefully we kill of 32-bit KVM and it's
a complete non-issue, but even if we have to add KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS2, I
don't see it being all that awkward for userspace to do:

  uint64_t supported_gmem_flags = kvm_check_extension(KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS) |
                                  (kvm_check_extension(KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS2) << 32);

We could even mimic what Intel did with 64-bit VMCS fields to handle 32-bit mode,
and explicitly name the second one KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS_HI:

  uint64_t supported_gmem_flags = kvm_check_extension(KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS) |
                                  (kvm_check_extension(KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS_HI) << 32);

so that if KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS_HI precedes 64-bit-only KVM, it could become
fully redundant, i.e. where someday this would hold true:

  kvm_check_extension(KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS) == 
  kvm_check_extension(KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS) | kvm_check_extension(KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS_HI) << 32

> In this model, conditionally valid flags are always set, 

I followed everything except this snippet.

> but userspace won't be able to do a flags check against the returned 32-bit
> value. Or do you think when this issue comes up, we'd put the flags in the
> upper bits in KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS2 and userspace would then check
> against the OR-ed set of flags instead?

As above, enumerate support for flags 63:32 in a separate capability.