[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aRHb5FJ2TUMtktVz@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:34:44 +0200
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
Cc: "Roy, Patrick" <roypat@...zon.co.uk>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"maz@...nel.org" <maz@...nel.org>,
"oliver.upton@...ux.dev" <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
"joey.gouly@....com" <joey.gouly@....com>,
"suzuki.poulose@....com" <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
"yuzenghui@...wei.com" <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
"lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com" <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
"Liam.Howlett@...cle.com" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
"vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"surenb@...gle.com" <surenb@...gle.com>,
"mhocko@...e.com" <mhocko@...e.com>,
"song@...nel.org" <song@...nel.org>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>,
"ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"andrii@...nel.org" <andrii@...nel.org>,
"martin.lau@...ux.dev" <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
"eddyz87@...il.com" <eddyz87@...il.com>,
"yonghong.song@...ux.dev" <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
"john.fastabend@...il.com" <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
"kpsingh@...nel.org" <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
"sdf@...ichev.me" <sdf@...ichev.me>,
"haoluo@...gle.com" <haoluo@...gle.com>,
"jgg@...pe.ca" <jgg@...pe.ca>,
"jhubbard@...dia.com" <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
"peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
"jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
"pfalcato@...e.de" <pfalcato@...e.de>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev" <kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"Cali, Marco" <xmarcalx@...zon.co.uk>,
"Kalyazin, Nikita" <kalyazin@...zon.co.uk>,
"Thomson, Jack" <jackabt@...zon.co.uk>,
"derekmn@...zon.co.uk" <derekmn@...zon.co.uk>,
"tabba@...gle.com" <tabba@...gle.com>,
"ackerleytng@...gle.com" <ackerleytng@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/12] KVM: guest_memfd: Add flag to remove from
direct map
On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 11:08:23AM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> On Mon Nov 3, 2025 at 10:50 AM UTC, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> >> >> > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> >> >> > index 1d0585616aa3..73a15cade54a 100644
> >> >> > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> >> >> > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> >> >> > @@ -731,6 +731,12 @@ static inline bool kvm_arch_has_private_mem(struct kvm *kvm)
> >> >> > bool kvm_arch_supports_gmem_mmap(struct kvm *kvm);
> >> >> > #endif
> >> >> >
> >> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_GUEST_MEMFD
> >> >> > +#ifndef kvm_arch_gmem_supports_no_direct_map
> >> >> > +#define kvm_arch_gmem_supports_no_direct_map can_set_direct_map
> >> >> > +#endif
> >> >> > +#endif /* CONFIG_KVM_GUEST_MEMFD */
> >> >>
>
> But this is for CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_DIRECT_MAP? I am reading this as a stub
> to fill in for archs that have set_direct_map_*, but don't have runtime
> disablement like arm64.
You are right.
> Whereas my concern is archs that don't have set_direct_map_* at all,
> i.e. where we need to unconditionally fail
> GUEST_MEMFG_FLAG_NO_DIRECT_MAP.
>
> (Or would we prefer to just not define it at all on those archs? Not
> sure what the norms are there, I guess that's a question for KVM/arch
> maintainers).
It makes sense to define can_set_direct_map to false for arches that don't
support set_direct_map.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists