Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] KVM: Dirty page logging for guest_memfd-only memslots

Alexandru Elisei <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.kvmarm,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.kvm
Message-ID <an3sEiQlIuGEjUur@raptor>
Hi Sean, David,

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 04:11:57PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
> >> That said, odds are good that we'll end up with per-gmem flags to communicate to
> >> guest_memfd whether or not the gmem instance supports page migration (x86's TDX
> >> and SNP in particular require extra consideration).  So if the anticipated use
> >> cases are fine with all-or-nothing "pinning", or with juggling guest_memfd files
> >> in userspace if a more dynamic setup is desired, then you should be ok?
> >>
> >> E.g. if the anticipated use cases are all slice-of-hardware style setups where
> >> the VM will be statically assigned a chunk of memory, then for the most part this
> >> will all Just Work.
> > 
> > Yeah. I agree (with the caveats you mention). Arm folk need to go figure
> > out if it's worthwhile to support with all those caveats.
> 
> Right, disabling migration (once gmem supports it) was also what I discussed
> with Alexandru when that topic comes up.
> 
> How to communicate to gmem that it wants these fixed mappings is a good question.

There's already a proposal for how to do this in the migratable guest_memfd
series [1] - it's a new guest_memfd creation flag that disables migration.

With Sean's comment that he expects swap/reclaim to be fully userspace
driven, I believe that would be enough to guarantee on the _kernel_ side
that SPE will work as intended for a guest.

I'm a slightly concerned though that all of this will work by chance, and
not by design, and in the future the behaviour might change to allow
guest_memfd memory to be unmapped from stage 2 without the VMM or KVM
explicitly allowing it or initiating it.

My understanding from the conversation so far is that the plan for the
future of guest_memfd is to support an option/mode where the memory is
effectively "pinned" at stage 2 (but which allows userspace to explicitly
free/unmap it, of course). Is that correct, or am I being overly optimistic
in my interpretation?

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/

Thanks,
Alex
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.