Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

[David Hildenbrand]

On 19.08.22 05:38, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, Kirill A . Shutemov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:40:12PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2022, Chao Peng wrote:
>>>> But since then, TDX in particular has forced an effort into preventing
>>>> (by flags, seals, notifiers) almost everything that makes it shmem/tmpfs.
>>>>
>>>> Are any of the shmem.c mods useful to existing users of shmem.c? No.
>>>> Is MFD_INACCESSIBLE useful or comprehensible to memfd_create() users? No.
>>
>> But QEMU and other VMMs are users of shmem and memfd.  The new features 
>> certainly
>> aren't useful for _all_ existing users, but I don't think it's fair to say 
>> that
>> they're not useful for _any_ existing users.
> 
> Okay, I stand corrected: there exist some users of memfd_create()
> who will also have use for "INACCESSIBLE" memory.

As raised in reply to the relevant patch, I'm not sure if we really have
to/want to expose MFD_INACCESSIBLE to user space. I feel like this is a
requirement of specific memfd_notifer (memfile_notifier) implementations
-- such as TDX that will convert the memory and MCE-kill the machine on
ordinary write access. We might be able to set/enforce this when
registering a notifier internally instead, and fail notifier
registration if a condition isn't met (e.g., existing mmap).

So I'd be curious, which other users of shmem/memfd would benefit from
(MMU)-"INACCESSIBLE" memory obtained via memfd_create()?

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb