Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 01/13] mm/shmem: Introduce F_SEAL_GUEST

[Sean Christopherson]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:21:39PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 07:18:00PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > No ideas for the kernel API, but that's also less concerning since
> > > > it's not set in stone.  I'm also not sure that dedicated APIs for
> > > > each high-ish level use case would be a bad thing, as the semantics
> > > > are unlikely to be different to some extent.  E.g. for the KVM use
> > > > case, there can be at most one guest associated with the fd, but
> > > > there can be any number of VFIO devices attached to the fd.
> > > 
> > > Even the kvm thing is not a hard restriction when you take away
> > > confidential compute.
> > > 
> > > Why can't we have multiple KVMs linked to the same FD if the memory
> > > isn't encrypted? Sure it isn't actually useful but it should work
> > > fine.
> > 
> > Hmm, true, but I want the KVM semantics to be 1:1 even if memory
> > isn't encrypted.
> 
> That is policy and it doesn't belong hardwired into the kernel.

Agreed.  I had a blurb typed up about that policy just being an "exclusive" flag
in the kernel API that KVM would set when creating a confidential VM, but deleted
it and forgot to restore it when I went down the tangent of removing userspace
from the TCB without an assist from hardware/firmware.

> Your explanation makes me think that the F_SEAL_XX isn't defined
> properly. It should be a userspace trap door to prevent any new
> external accesses, including establishing new kvms, iommu's, rdmas,
> mmaps, read/write, etc.

Hmm, the way I was thinking of it is that it the F_SEAL_XX itself would prevent
mapping/accessing it from userspace, and that any policy beyond that would be
done via kernel APIs and thus handled by whatever in-kernel agent can access the
memory.  E.g. in the confidential VM case, without support for trusted devices,
KVM would require that it be the sole owner of the file.