Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm/memory_hotplug: Add support to unaccept memory after hot-remove

[Pratik R. Sampat]

On 1/13/26 11:53 AM, Kiryl Shutsemau wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 11:10:21AM -0600, Pratik R. Sampat wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/13/2026 4:28 AM, Kiryl Shutsemau wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 02:23:00PM -0600, Pratik R. Sampat wrote:
>>>> Transition memory to the shared state during a hot-remove operation so
>>>> that it can be re-used by the hypervisor. This also applies when memory
>>>> is intended to be hotplugged back in later, as those pages will need to
>>>> be re-accepted after crossing the trust boundary.
>>>
>>> Hm. What happens when we hot-remove memory that was there at the boot
>>> and there's bitmap space for it?
>>>
>>
>> While hotplug ranges gotten from SRAT don't seem to overlap with the
>> conventional ranges in the unaccepted table, EFI_MEMORY_HOT_PLUGGABLE
>> attribute could indicate boot time memory that could be hot-removed. I
>> could potentially unset the bitmap first, if the bit exists and then
>> unaccept.
>>
>> Similarly, I could also check if the bitmap is large enough to set the
>> bit before I call arch_accept_memory() (This may not really be needed
>> though).
>>
>>> Also, I'm not sure why it is needed. At least in TDX case, VMM can pull
>>> the memory from under guest at any time without a warning. Coverting
>>> memory to shared shouldn't make a difference as along as re-adding the
>>> same GPA range triggers accept.
>>>
>>
>> That makes sense. The only scenario where we could run into trouble on
>> SNP platforms is when we redo a qemu device_add after a device_del
>> without first removing the memory object entirely since same-state
>> transitions result in guest termination.
>>
>> This means we must always follow a device_del with an object_del on
>> removal. Otherwise, the onus would then be on the VMM to transition
>> the memory back to shared before re-adding it to the guest.
> 
> This seems to be one-of-many possible ways of VMM to get guest terminated.
> DoS is not in something confidential computing aims to prevent.
> 
>> However, if this flow is not a concern to begin with then I could
>> probably just drop this patch?
> 
> Yes, please.

Putting more thought into it, memory unacceptance on remove may be required
after all at least for SNP platforms.

Consider a scenario:
* Guest accepts a GPA say G1, mapped to a host physical address H1.
* We attempt to hot-remove the memory. If the guest does not unaccept the memory
  now then G1 to H1 mapping within the RMP will still exist.
* Then if the hypervisor later hot-adds the memory to G1, it will be now mapped
  to H3 and this new mapping will be accepted.

This will essentially mean that we have 2 RMP entries: One for H1 and another
for H3 mapped for G1 which are both validated / accepted which can then be
swapped at will and compromise integrity.

--Pratik
>