Re: [PATCH 1/6] KVM: guest_memfd: Add DEFAULT_SHARED flag, reject user page faults if not set

[Sean Christopherson]

On Wed, Oct 01, 2025, Vishal Annapurve wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 9:15 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2025, Vishal Annapurve wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 5:15 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh!  This got me looking at kvm_arch_supports_gmem_mmap() and thus
> > > > KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_MMAP.  Two things:
> > > >
> > > >  1. We should change KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_MMAP into KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS so
> > > >     that we don't need to add a capability every time a new flag comes along,
> > > >     and so that userspace can gather all flags in a single ioctl.  If gmem ever
> > > >     supports more than 32 flags, we'll need KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS2, but
> > > >     that's a non-issue relatively speaking.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Guest_memfd capabilities don't necessarily translate into flags, so ideally:
> > > 1) There should be two caps, KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS and
> > > KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_CAPS.
> >
> > I'm not saying we can't have another GUEST_MEMFD capability or three, all I'm
> > saying is that for enumerating what flags can be passed to KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD,
> > KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS is a better fit than a one-off KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_MMAP.
> 
> Ah, ok. Then do you envision the guest_memfd caps to still be separate
> KVM caps per guest_memfd feature?

Yes?  No?  It depends on the feature and the actual implementation.  E.g.
KVM_CAP_IRQCHIP enumerates support for a whole pile of ioctls.