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

[Vishal Annapurve]

On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 5:04 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2025, Vishal Annapurve wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 10:16 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I think I am confused. Is the proposal here as follows?
> > * Use KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS for features that map to guest_memfd
> > creation flags.
>
> No, the proposal is to use KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_FLAGS to enumerate the set of
> supported KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD flags.  Whether or not there is an associated
> "feature" is irrelevant.  I.e. it's a very literal "these are the supported
> flags".
>
> > * Use KVM caps for guest_memfd features that don't map to any flags.
> >
> > I think in general it would be better to have a KVM cap for each
> > feature irrespective of the flags as the feature may also need
>                                                    ^^^
> > additional UAPIs like IOCTLs.
>
> If the _only_ user-visible asset that is added is a KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD flag,
> a CAP is gross overkill.  Even if there are other assets that accompany the new
> flag, there's no reason we couldn't say "this feature exist if XYZ flag is
> supported".
>
> E.g. it's functionally no different than KVM_CAP_VM_TYPES reporting support for
> KVM_X86_TDX_VM also effectively reporting support for a _huge_ number of things
> far beyond being able to create a VM of type KVM_X86_TDX_VM.
>

What's your opinion about having KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_MMAP part of
KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_CAPS i.e. having a KVM cap covering all features
of guest_memfd? That seems more consistent to me in order for
userspace to deduce the supported features and assume flags/ioctls/...
associated with the feature as a group.