| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <diqzcy6vhdvn.fsf@google.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 16:08:44 -0700
From: Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>, Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com>,
Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 11/12] KVM: selftests: Add guest_memfd tests for mmap
and NUMA policy support
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> writes:
> From: Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com>
>
> Add tests for NUMA memory policy binding and NUMA aware allocation in
> guest_memfd. This extends the existing selftests by adding proper
> validation for:
> - KVM GMEM set_policy and get_policy() vm_ops functionality using
> mbind() and get_mempolicy()
> - NUMA policy application before and after memory allocation
>
> Run the NUMA mbind() test with and without INIT_SHARED, as KVM should allow
> doing mbind(), madvise(), etc. on guest-private memory, e.g. so that
> userspace can set NUMA policy for CoCo VMs.
>
> Run the NUMA allocation test only for INIT_SHARED, i.e. if the host can't
> fault-in memory (via direct access, madvise(), etc.) as move_pages()
> returns -ENOENT if the page hasn't been faulted in (walks the host page
> tables to find the associated folio)
>
> Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com>
> Tested-by: Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>
> [sean: don't skip entire test when running on non-NUMA system, test mbind()
> with private memory, provide more info in assert messages]
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> ---
> .../testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+)
>
>
> [...snip...]
>
> +static void test_numa_allocation(int fd, size_t total_size)
> +{
> + unsigned long node0_mask = 1; /* Node 0 */
> + unsigned long node1_mask = 2; /* Node 1 */
> + unsigned long maxnode = 8;
> + void *pages[4];
> + int status[4];
> + char *mem;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (!is_multi_numa_node_system())
> + return;
> +
> + mem = kvm_mmap(total_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
> + pages[i] = (char *)mem + page_size * i;
> +
> + /* Set NUMA policy after allocation */
> + memset(mem, 0xaa, page_size);
> + kvm_mbind(pages[0], page_size, MPOL_BIND, &node0_mask, maxnode, 0);
> + kvm_fallocate(fd, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, 0, page_size);
> +
> + /* Set NUMA policy before allocation */
> + kvm_mbind(pages[0], page_size * 2, MPOL_BIND, &node1_mask, maxnode, 0);
> + kvm_mbind(pages[2], page_size * 2, MPOL_BIND, &node0_mask, maxnode, 0);
> + memset(mem, 0xaa, total_size);
> +
> + /* Validate if pages are allocated on specified NUMA nodes */
> + kvm_move_pages(0, 4, pages, NULL, status, 0);
> + TEST_ASSERT(status[0] == 1, "Expected page 0 on node 1, got it on node %d", status[0]);
> + TEST_ASSERT(status[1] == 1, "Expected page 1 on node 1, got it on node %d", status[1]);
> + TEST_ASSERT(status[2] == 0, "Expected page 2 on node 0, got it on node %d", status[2]);
> + TEST_ASSERT(status[3] == 0, "Expected page 3 on node 0, got it on node %d", status[3]);
> +
> + /* Punch hole for all pages */
> + kvm_fallocate(fd, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, 0, total_size);
> +
> + /* Change NUMA policy nodes and reallocate */
> + kvm_mbind(pages[0], page_size * 2, MPOL_BIND, &node0_mask, maxnode, 0);
> + kvm_mbind(pages[2], page_size * 2, MPOL_BIND, &node1_mask, maxnode, 0);
> + memset(mem, 0xaa, total_size);
> +
> + kvm_move_pages(0, 4, pages, NULL, status, 0);
> + TEST_ASSERT(status[0] == 0, "Expected page 0 on node 0, got it on node %d", status[0]);
> + TEST_ASSERT(status[1] == 0, "Expected page 1 on node 0, got it on node %d", status[1]);
> + TEST_ASSERT(status[2] == 1, "Expected page 2 on node 1, got it on node %d", status[2]);
> + TEST_ASSERT(status[3] == 1, "Expected page 3 on node 1, got it on node %d", status[3]);
> +
Related to my comment on patch 5: might a test for guest_memfd with
regard to the memory spread page cache feature provided by the cpuset
subsystem be missing?
Perhaps we need tests for
1. Test that the allocation matches current's mempolicy, with no
mempolicy defined for specific indices.
2. Test that during allocation, current's mempolicy can be overridden with
a mempolicy defined for specific indices.
3. Test that during allocation, current's mempolicy and the effect of
cpuset config can be overridden with a mempolicy defined for specific
indices.
4. Test that during allocation, without defining a mempolicy for given
index, current's mempolicy is overridden by the effect of cpuset
config
I believe test 4, before patch 5, will show that guest_memfd respects
cpuset config, but after patch 5, will show that guest_memfd no longer
allows cpuset config to override current's mempolicy.
> + kvm_munmap(mem, total_size);
> +}
> +
> static void test_fault_sigbus(int fd, size_t accessible_size, size_t map_size)
> {
> const char val = 0xaa;
> @@ -273,11 +369,13 @@ static void __test_guest_memfd(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint64_t flags)
> if (flags & GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_INIT_SHARED) {
> gmem_test(mmap_supported, vm, flags);
> gmem_test(fault_overflow, vm, flags);
> + gmem_test(numa_allocation, vm, flags);
> } else {
> gmem_test(fault_private, vm, flags);
> }
>
> gmem_test(mmap_cow, vm, flags);
> + gmem_test(mbind, vm, flags);
> } else {
> gmem_test(mmap_not_supported, vm, flags);
> }
> --
> 2.51.0.710.ga91ca5db03-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists