Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] KVM: Document KVM_MAP_MEMORY ioctl

[Huang, Kai]

> > >   
> > > +4.143 KVM_MAP_MEMORY
> > > +------------------------
> > > +
> > > +:Capability: KVM_CAP_MAP_MEMORY
> > > +:Architectures: none
> > > +:Type: vcpu ioctl
> >
> > I think "vcpu ioctl" means theoretically it can be called on multiple vcpus.
> >
> > What happens in that case?
>
> Each vcpu can handle the ioctl simaltaneously.  

Not sure whether it is implied, but should we document it can be called 
simultaneously?

Also, I believe this is only supposed to be called before VM starts to 
run?  I think we should document that too.

This is userspace ABI, we need to be explicit on how it is supposed to 
be called from userspace.

Btw, I believe there should be some justification in the changelog why 
this should be a vcpu ioctl().

[...]

> > > +:Parameters: struct kvm_memory_mapping(in/out)
> > > +:Returns: 0 on success, <0 on error
> > > +
> > > +KVM_MAP_MEMORY populates guest memory without running vcpu.
> > > +
> > > +::
> > > +
> > > +  struct kvm_memory_mapping {
> > > +	__u64 base_gfn;
> > > +	__u64 nr_pages;
> > > +	__u64 flags;
> > > +	__u64 source;
> > > +  };
> > > +
> > > +  /* For kvm_memory_mapping:: flags */
> > > +  #define KVM_MEMORY_MAPPING_FLAG_WRITE         _BITULL(0)
> > > +  #define KVM_MEMORY_MAPPING_FLAG_EXEC          _BITULL(1)
> > > +  #define KVM_MEMORY_MAPPING_FLAG_USER          _BITULL(2)
> >
> > I am not sure what's the good of having "FLAG_USER"?
> >
> > This ioctl is called from userspace, thus I think we can just treat this always
> > as user-fault?
>
> The point is how to emulate kvm page fault as if vcpu caused the kvm page
> fault.  Not we call the ioctl as user context.

Sorry I don't quite follow.  What's wrong if KVM just append the #PF 
USER error bit before it calls into the fault handler?

My question is, since this is ABI, you have to tell how userspace is 
supposed to use this.  Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see how 
USER should be used here.