[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest
From: |
Nikunj A. Dadhania |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Aug 2022 15:32:07 +0530 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0 |
On 06/07/22 13:50, Chao Peng wrote:
> This is the v7 of this series which tries to implement the fd-based KVM
> guest private memory. The patches are based on latest kvm/queue branch
> commit:
>
> b9b71f43683a (kvm/queue) KVM: x86/mmu: Buffer nested MMU
> split_desc_cache only by default capacity
>
> Introduction
> ------------
> In general this patch series introduce fd-based memslot which provides
> guest memory through memory file descriptor fd[offset,size] instead of
> hva/size. The fd can be created from a supported memory filesystem
> like tmpfs/hugetlbfs etc. which we refer as memory backing store. KVM
> and the the memory backing store exchange callbacks when such memslot
> gets created. At runtime KVM will call into callbacks provided by the
> backing store to get the pfn with the fd+offset. Memory backing store
> will also call into KVM callbacks when userspace punch hole on the fd
> to notify KVM to unmap secondary MMU page table entries.
>
> Comparing to existing hva-based memslot, this new type of memslot allows
> guest memory unmapped from host userspace like QEMU and even the kernel
> itself, therefore reduce attack surface and prevent bugs.
>
> Based on this fd-based memslot, we can build guest private memory that
> is going to be used in confidential computing environments such as Intel
> TDX and AMD SEV. When supported, the memory backing store can provide
> more enforcement on the fd and KVM can use a single memslot to hold both
> the private and shared part of the guest memory.
>
> mm extension
> ---------------------
> Introduces new MFD_INACCESSIBLE flag for memfd_create(), the file
> created with these flags cannot read(), write() or mmap() etc via normal
> MMU operations. The file content can only be used with the newly
> introduced memfile_notifier extension.
>
> The memfile_notifier extension provides two sets of callbacks for KVM to
> interact with the memory backing store:
> - memfile_notifier_ops: callbacks for memory backing store to notify
> KVM when memory gets invalidated.
> - backing store callbacks: callbacks for KVM to call into memory
> backing store to request memory pages for guest private memory.
>
> The memfile_notifier extension also provides APIs for memory backing
> store to register/unregister itself and to trigger the notifier when the
> bookmarked memory gets invalidated.
>
> The patchset also introduces a new memfd seal F_SEAL_AUTO_ALLOCATE to
> prevent double allocation caused by unintentional guest when we only
> have a single side of the shared/private memfds effective.
>
> memslot extension
> -----------------
> Add the private fd and the fd offset to existing 'shared' memslot so
> that both private/shared guest memory can live in one single memslot.
> A page in the memslot is either private or shared. Whether a guest page
> is private or shared is maintained through reusing existing SEV ioctls
> KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_{UN,}REG_REGION.
>
> Test
> ----
> To test the new functionalities of this patch TDX patchset is needed.
> Since TDX patchset has not been merged so I did two kinds of test:
>
> - Regresion test on kvm/queue (this patchset)
> Most new code are not covered. Code also in below repo:
> https://github.com/chao-p/linux/tree/privmem-v7
>
> - New Funational test on latest TDX code
> The patch is rebased to latest TDX code and tested the new
> funcationalities. See below repos:
> Linux: https://github.com/chao-p/linux/tree/privmem-v7-tdx
> QEMU: https://github.com/chao-p/qemu/tree/privmem-v7
While debugging an issue with SEV+UPM, found that fallocate() returns
an error in QEMU which is not handled (EINTR). With the below handling
of EINTR subsequent fallocate() succeeds:
diff --git a/backends/hostmem-memfd-private.c b/backends/hostmem-memfd-private.c
index af8fb0c957..e8597ed28d 100644
--- a/backends/hostmem-memfd-private.c
+++ b/backends/hostmem-memfd-private.c
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ priv_memfd_backend_memory_alloc(HostMemoryBackend *backend,
Error **errp)
MachineState *machine = MACHINE(qdev_get_machine());
uint32_t ram_flags;
char *name;
- int fd, priv_fd;
+ int fd, priv_fd, ret;
if (!backend->size) {
error_setg(errp, "can't create backend with size 0");
@@ -65,7 +65,15 @@ priv_memfd_backend_memory_alloc(HostMemoryBackend *backend,
Error **errp)
backend->size, ram_flags, fd, 0, errp);
g_free(name);
- fallocate(priv_fd, 0, 0, backend->size);
+again:
+ ret = fallocate(priv_fd, 0, 0, backend->size);
+ if (ret) {
+ perror("Fallocate failed: \n");
+ if (errno == EINTR)
+ goto again;
+ else
+ exit(1);
+ }
However, fallocate() preallocates full guest memory before starting the guest.
With this behaviour guest memory is *not* demand pinned. Is there a way to
prevent fallocate() from reserving full guest memory?
> An example QEMU command line for TDX test:
> -object tdx-guest,id=tdx,debug=off,sept-ve-disable=off \
> -machine confidential-guest-support=tdx \
> -object memory-backend-memfd-private,id=ram1,size=${mem} \
> -machine memory-backend=ram1
>
Regards,
Nikunj
- Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory,
Nikunj A. Dadhania <=
- Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory, Gupta, Pankaj, 2022/08/11
- Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory, Chao Peng, 2022/08/11
- Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory, Nikunj A. Dadhania, 2022/08/11
- Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory, Gupta, Pankaj, 2022/08/11
- Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory, Gupta, Pankaj, 2022/08/12
- Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory, Gupta, Pankaj, 2022/08/12
- Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory, Nikunj A. Dadhania, 2022/08/12
- Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory, Gupta, Pankaj, 2022/08/12