Re: Unmapping KVM Guest Memory from Host Kernel

[Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com>]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 9:26 AM Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:05 PM Manwaring, Derek <derekmn@amazon.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2024-03-08 at 10:46-0700, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2024-03-08 at 09:35 -0800, David Matlack wrote:
> > > > I think what James is looking for (and what we are also interested
> > > > in), is _eliminating_ the ability to access guest memory from the
> > > > direct map entirely. And in general, eliminate the ability to access
> > > > guest memory in as many ways as possible.
> > >
> > > Well, pKVM does that...
> >
> > Yes we've been looking at pKVM and it accomplishes a lot of what we're trying
> > to do. Our initial inclination is that we want to stick with VHE for the lower
> > overhead. We also want flexibility across server parts, so we would need to
> > get pKVM working on Intel & AMD if we went this route.
> >
> > Certainly there are advantages of pKVM on the perf side like the in-place
> > memory sharing rather than copying as well as on the security side by simply
> > reducing the TCB. I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on pKVM vs
> > memfd_secret or general ASI.
>
> The work we've done for pKVM is still an RFC [*], but there is nothing
> in it that limits it to nVHE (at least not intentionally). It should
> work with VHE and hVHE as well. On respinning the patch series [*], we
> plan on adding support for normal VMs to use guest_memfd() as well in
> arm64, mainly for testing, and to make it easier for others to base
> their work on it.

Just to clarify, I am referring specifically to the work we did in
porting guest_memfd() to pKVM/arm64. pKVM itself works only in nVHE
mode.
>
> Cheers,
> /fuad
>
> [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240222161047.402609-1-tabba@google.com
> >
> > Derek
> >