On Tue, Aug 02, 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote: > I think we should avoid UNMAPPABLE even on the KVM side of things for the core > memslots functionality and instead be very literal, e.g. > > KVM_HAS_FD_BASED_MEMSLOTS > KVM_MEM_FD_VALID > > We'll still need KVM_HAS_USER_UNMAPPABLE_MEMORY, but it won't be tied directly to > the memslot. Decoupling the two thingis will require a bit of extra work, but the > code impact should be quite small, e.g. explicitly query and propagate > MEMFILE_F_USER_INACCESSIBLE to kvm_memory_slot to track if a memslot can be private. > And unless I'm missing something, it won't require an additional memslot flag. > The biggest oddity (if we don't also add KVM_MEM_PRIVATE) is that KVM would > effectively ignore the hva for fd-based memslots for VM types that don't support > private memory, i.e. userspace can't opt out of using the fd-based backing, but that > doesn't seem like a deal breaker. Hrm, but basing private memory on top of a generic FD_VALID would effectively require shared memory to use hva-based memslots for confidential VMs. That'd yield a very weird API, e.g. non-confidential VMs could be backed entirely by fd-based memslots, but confidential VMs would be forced to use hva-based memslots. Ignore this idea for now. If there's an actual use case for generic fd-based memory then we'll want a separate flag, fd, and offset, i.e. that support could be added independent of KVM_MEM_PRIVATE.
