From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0084C433F5 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 19:48:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F93D61A58 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 19:48:09 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 6F93D61A58 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ziepe.ca Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E6DF66B006C; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:47:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E1CF66B0071; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:47:58 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id CBEC16B0073; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:47:58 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0045.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.45]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2216B006C for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:47:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE68184D7B0E for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 19:47:48 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78826715016.22.D97F585 Received: from mail-qv1-f45.google.com (mail-qv1-f45.google.com [209.85.219.45]) by imf15.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B424FD0000A2 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 19:47:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qv1-f45.google.com with SMTP id bu11so7898838qvb.0 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:47:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ziepe.ca; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=b8HwEu/l2NAGuMcWKH5jQM9AiiPfyTyPdU6LnAiTwjE=; b=eXYLScpgWGOSOqBVSQtdTVD++xT2fUA+29WU5uRjLvVVyE3JEysFYMD3c5m3MUuwhi 2/dEOlgu6r/9aoIpMC/3VJ29OZt+Y5gY+DeEvBjU4JCXVvlQTRyE4kipd4bnNE4VfygO gi2wVXk5KMG1My3gjGCyppqDyPaW46HK5/4P7hKcEdPibptKWHECr7E7AOpM6qgeV0Gk 5XFBGCzNpMsoTIPVISn+JIpRXTxD1C4vDaEFVrlgHo58JmtwUKTR1DrLx7zfgn5Z1MG8 NtfI2Hh1jxXAWFSVfmkK0Vl+a+bgSvADPQFiF6otkPWuXnCgFRePBcvR1qLvCTFwllWk rJ2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=b8HwEu/l2NAGuMcWKH5jQM9AiiPfyTyPdU6LnAiTwjE=; b=DAp00qdikXZ3t+G6HGLmbGhlXXeW04ZzNxc5td90VQnmsIC+mi3SnnTJTgUs8FrF/N GShu1wPdGDHYt99hzBMrh+Z+IlTBrno3bK5Wep5KzR9jZeN/p+IakZFHlEdO5vlBdllD QZjKt208LLKp13Rn4fXjc8bqJCV8cz15IYDzvu077Yj5VMLrfWlQYxznNYpNC7LB0DCt Q4YFzUG16UgbN86Dlz5zLg78mSEmdt+5R7ZGU78XC3F6AIHHbWOskEe50u62V41/+H0B jsk3YjddvP/uTdIexyyM6dYNanvhV7PqXasekbNvKfziSCy8CqZog4phO6YQ4GKi5zl+ HeXw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531q0vcWNwQUNT5RqqLWg4EAMPNbOmTMP+dUEwMX+HWegzep3K96 291K+f1kGIMjwhuyNxwfMl5k9w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwYijRrK8qgpzAhCkRXoqK9YWbXTodbosR5h3I14ZDdTjYbPRJ8dYw0rADALVOrpBmC6Q7oWg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:4107:: with SMTP id kc7mr76325935qvb.57.1637351267376; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ziepe.ca (hlfxns017vw-142-162-113-129.dhcp-dynamic.fibreop.ns.bellaliant.net. [142.162.113.129]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d13sm339977qkn.100.2021.11.19.11.47.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:47:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from jgg by mlx with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1mo9rO-00Cdid-BP; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 15:47:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 15:47:46 -0400 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Sean Christopherson Cc: David Hildenbrand , Chao Peng , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paolo Bonzini , Jonathan Corbet , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Joerg Roedel , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , x86@kernel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" , Hugh Dickins , Jeff Layton , "J . Bruce Fields" , Andrew Morton , Yu Zhang , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , luto@kernel.org, john.ji@intel.com, susie.li@intel.com, jun.nakajima@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 01/13] mm/shmem: Introduce F_SEAL_GUEST Message-ID: <20211119194746.GM876299@ziepe.ca> References: <20211119134739.20218-1-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com> <20211119134739.20218-2-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com> <20211119151943.GH876299@ziepe.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Stat-Signature: 5rrsrs3f8dfb6afxhjbdtowo7jp1wjsz X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B424FD0000A2 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 Authentication-Results: imf15.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=ziepe.ca header.s=google header.b=eXYLScpg; spf=pass (imf15.hostedemail.com: domain of jgg@ziepe.ca designates 209.85.219.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jgg@ziepe.ca; dmarc=none X-HE-Tag: 1637351265-665248 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 07:18:00PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 19.11.21 16:19, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > As designed the above looks useful to import a memfd to a VFIO > > > container but could you consider some more generic naming than calling > > > this 'guest' ? > > > > +1 the guest terminology is somewhat sob-optimal. > > For the F_SEAL part, maybe F_SEAL_UNMAPPABLE? Perhaps INACCESSIBLE? > 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. Supporting only one thing is just a way to avoid having a linked list of clients to broadcast invalidations too - for instance by using a standard notifier block... Also, how does dirty tracking work on this memory? Jason