Ackerley Tng <[email protected]> writes: > When the provider wants to revoke the page, the notifications/function > calls flow this way, the last [ENTITY] in the chain actually does the > zapping. > > + [PROVIDER] -> [KVM] > + [PROVIDER] -> [DMABUF] -> [IOMMU] > + [PROVIDER] -> [GUEST_MEMFD] -> [USERSPACE] (AFAICT this was not > implemented in the RFC.)
Thanks for going through it. I have just posted v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ It changes two of these chains. dma-buf is gone: iommufd attaches to the provider file itself, through a small interface in mm. And guest_memfd now maps the file into userspace from the provider's frames, so a revoke also zaps the VMM's mapping: [PROVIDER] -> [GUEST_MEMFD] -> [KVM], [USERSPACE] [PROVIDER] -> [IOMMU] > IIUC guest_memfd conversions was not illustrated in the RFC: what > happens on a shared -> private conversion? There are none yet. Only VMs of type KVM_X86_DEFAULT_VM can use a provider, so all their memory is shared. > Does your provider need to know if some memory was transitioned between > shared/private states? The provider can be notified too, if > necessary. If not, then isn't guest_memfd doing all the coordination > better than going via the provider? Our provider does not need to know, and I agree: once there is private memory, guest_memfd converts the pages, so it should tell the others what to zap. I think the two models meet there, and the v2 cover letter now says so. The iommufd side of v2 does not pin and keeps no references: it asks for the frame behind each page, treats a page with no frame as a hole, and maps again on a revoke. guest_memfd can offer that for its own file: shared pages return their frames, private pages are holes, and guest_memfd revokes a range whenever it converts it, in either direction. That is your [GUEST_MEMFD] -> [IOMMU], and it should work for folio-backed guest_memfd without memfd_pin_folios() or refcounts, as long as guest_memfd also revokes a range before it frees its folios. The one difference is that v2 also lets iommufd map a provider file directly. Going through guest_memfd would add nothing without private memory: it would only pass each revoke on. And memory that only devices use, such as MMIO, does not go through guest_memfd at all. Both paths would use the same iommufd code. > Does the revocation model work for you? If it helps, I can rebuild the > sample provider to illustrate how the revocation can be done. Yes, the revocation model works for us. v2 replaces David's sample with one that moves, donates and makes pages read-only, and a selftest that checks the guest, the device and the VMM's mapping after each change. It may be a good base if you want to try guest_memfd as the provider for iommufd on top of it. > 4. [DIRECTMAP] Kernel direct map. Agreed, that is separate. The memory we have in mind is a range hidden from the host with memmap=, so it is not in the direct map. Thanks, Fred
