Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 14 Jan 2019 02:15:40 -0500 (EST)
From:   Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@redhat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
        linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz, stefanha@redhat.com,
        dan j williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, riel@surriel.com,
        nilal@redhat.com, kwolf@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        zwisler@kernel.org, vishal l verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        dave jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>, david@redhat.com,
        jmoyer@redhat.com,
        xiaoguangrong eric <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com>,
        hch@infradead.org, mst@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com,
        lcapitulino@redhat.com, imammedo@redhat.com, eblake@redhat.com,
        tytso@mit.edu, adilger kernel <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        darrick wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>, rjw@rjwysocki.net
Message-ID: <942065073.64011540.1547450140670.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190113233820.GX6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20190109144736.17452-1-pagupta@redhat.com> <20190110012617.GA4205@dastard> <1326478078.61913951.1547192704870.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20190113232902.GD4205@dastard> <20190113233820.GX6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] kvm "virtio pmem" device
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Topic: kvm "virtio pmem" device
Thread-Index: fXKA+vj/EtBojiKZdg45HpfkQoxS7w==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


> > 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