Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 21:06:08 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH gmem FIXUP] kvm: guestmem: do not use a file system
Message-ID: <20231009200608.GJ800259@ZenIV>
References: <20230928180651.1525674-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <169595365500.1386813.6579237770749312873.b4-ty@google.com>
 <20231009022248.GD800259@ZenIV>
 <ZSQO4fHaAxDkbGyz@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZSQO4fHaAxDkbGyz@google.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 07:32:48AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:

> Yeah, we found that out the hard way.  Is using the "secure" variant to get a
> per-file inode a sane approach, or is that abuse that's going to bite us too?
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Use the so called "secure" variant, which creates a unique inode
> 	 * instead of reusing a single inode.  Each guest_memfd instance needs
> 	 * its own inode to track the size, flags, etc.
> 	 */
> 	file = anon_inode_getfile_secure(anon_name, &kvm_gmem_fops, gmem,
> 					 O_RDWR, NULL);

Umm...  Is there any chance that your call site will ever be in a module?
If not, you are probably OK with that variant.  I don't like the details
of that interface (anon_inode_getfile_secure(), that is), but that's
a separate story and your use wouldn't make things harder to clean up.