> > Until you have images (and hence host page cache) shared between > > multiple guests. People will want to do this, because it means they > > only need a single set of pages in host memory for executable > > binaries rather than a set of pages per guest. Then you have > > multiple guests being able to detect residency of the same set of > > pages. If the guests can then, in any way, control eviction of the > > pages from the host cache, then we have a guest-to-guest information > > leak channel. > > I don't think we should ever be considering something that would allow a > guest to evict page's from the host's pagecache [1]. The guest should > be able to kick its own references to the host's pagecache out of its > own pagecache, but not be able to influence whether the host or another > guest has a read-only mapping cached. > > [1] Unless the guest is allowed to modify the host's file; obviously > truncation, holepunching, etc are going to evict pages from the host's > page cache. This is so correct. Guest does not not evict host page cache pages directly. In case of virtio-pmem & DAX, guest clears guest page cache exceptional entries. Its solely decision of host to take action on the host page cache pages. In case of virtio-pmem, guest does not modify host file directly i.e don't perform hole punch & truncation operation directly on host file. Thanks, Pankaj
