Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/51] KVM: guest_memfd: Introduce and use shareability to guard faulting

[Vishal Annapurve]

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 4:40 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +};
> > +
> > +enum shareability {
> > +     SHAREABILITY_GUEST = 1, /* Only the guest can map (fault) folios in this range. */
> > +     SHAREABILITY_ALL = 2,   /* Both guest and host can fault folios in this range. */
> > +};
>
> Rather than define new values and new KVM uAPI, I think we should instead simply
> support KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES.  We'll probably need a new CAP, as I'm not sure
> supporting KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION+KVM_CAP_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES on a gmem fd would be a
> good idea (e.g. trying to do KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS on a gmem fd doesn't work
> because the whole point is to get flags _before_ creating the gmem instance).  But
> adding e.g. KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES is easy enough.
>
> But for specifying PRIVATE vs. SHARED, I don't see any reason to define new uAPI.
> I also don't want an entirely new set of terms in KVM to describe the same things.
> PRIVATE and SHARED are far from perfect, but they're better than https://xkcd.com/927.
> And if we ever want to let userspace restrict RWX protections in gmem, we'll have
> a ready-made way to do so.
>

I don't understand why we need to reuse KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES. It
anyways is a new ABI as it's on a guest_memfd FD instead of KVM FD.

RWX protections seem to be pagetable configuration rather than
guest_memfd properties. Can mmap flags + kvm userfaultfd help enforce
RWX protections?