Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
Message-ID: <fd764cff-f4bc-a13d-96dc-a7eaab8434f2@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2023 19:14:29 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     isaku.yamahata@intel.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@gmail.com,
        Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>, erdemaktas@google.com,
        Sagi Shahar <sagis@google.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>,
        Zhi Wang <zhi.wang.linux@gmail.com>, chen.bo@intel.com,
        linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
        Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>,
        Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@google.com>,
        Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@google.com>,
        Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@linux.intel.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>, wei.w.wang@intel.com,
        Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com>
References: <cover.1695327124.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <ZQynx5DyP56/HAxV@google.com>
 <20230922194029.GA1206715@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <ZQ3573rbNQpbNf09@google.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/6] KVM: gmem: Implement test cases for
 error_remove_page
In-Reply-To: <ZQ3573rbNQpbNf09@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/22/23 22:32, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Unless we can't extend fadvise() for some reason, I think we should pursue
> FADV_HWPOISION.  The enabling should be downright trivial, e.g. just implement
> file_operations.fadvise() for guest_memfd, have it handle FADV_HWPOISON, and pass
> everything else to generic_fadvise().
> 
> It'll basically be your ioctl() just without a dedicated ioctl().
> 
> At the very least, we should run the idea past the fs maintainers.

fadvise() is different from madvise() though and not necessarily a great 
match.  Looking at the list of flags in advise(), something like 
FADV_POPULATE_READ, FADV_PAGEOUT or FADV_COLD would make sense, but I 
can't really think of any other flag that would be useful in a general 
case for fadvise.  Everything else would have to be very spcific to 
memfd or guest_memfd.

In particular FADV_HWPOISON would not make sense for anything that is 
not backend by memory.  There are some flags that could be useful on 
gmem file descriptors, such as hypothetically {WIPE,KEEP}ONFORK or 
SOFT_OFFLINE, but again they're not something that can be applied to 
fadvise().

So a ioctl implementation does have some advantages after all.  I 
suggest that we reuse MADV_* flags in the ioctl arguments, to leave the 
door open for future extensions and avoid ioctl proliferation.  The 
ioctl could be implemented by memfd, too, and perhaps even by /dev/zero.

Paolo