Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 08:51:55 -0700
In-Reply-To: <33686031-c1df-4ef5-a6ac-1aab7f5c656e@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20231027182217.3615211-1-seanjc@google.com> <20231027182217.3615211-10-seanjc@google.com>
 <482bfea6f54ea1bb7d1ad75e03541d0ba0e5be6f.camel@intel.com>
 <ZUKMsOdg3N9wmEzy@google.com> <33686031-c1df-4ef5-a6ac-1aab7f5c656e@intel.com>
Message-ID: <ZUPFmwWjPFlXRlPi@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 09/35] KVM: Add KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT exit to report
 faults to userspace
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
Cc:     Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>,
        "viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "aou@eecs.berkeley.edu" <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        "brauner@kernel.org" <brauner@kernel.org>,
        "oliver.upton@linux.dev" <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
        "chenhuacai@kernel.org" <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
        "paul.walmsley@sifive.com" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        "palmer@dabbelt.com" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        "maz@kernel.org" <maz@kernel.org>,
        "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "mpe@ellerman.id.au" <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        "willy@infradead.org" <willy@infradead.org>,
        "anup@brainfault.org" <anup@brainfault.org>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org" <kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        "mic@digikod.net" <mic@digikod.net>,
        "liam.merwick@oracle.com" <liam.merwick@oracle.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        "david@redhat.com" <david@redhat.com>,
        "tabba@google.com" <tabba@google.com>,
        "amoorthy@google.com" <amoorthy@google.com>,
        "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "michael.roth@amd.com" <michael.roth@amd.com>,
        "kvmarm@lists.linux.dev" <kvmarm@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        "chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>,
        "linux-mips@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@google.com>,
        "vbabka@suse.cz" <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "mail@maciej.szmigiero.name" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>,
        "yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com" <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>,
        "qperret@google.com" <qperret@google.com>,
        "dmatlack@google.com" <dmatlack@google.com>,
        Yilun Xu <yilun.xu@intel.com>,
        "isaku.yamahata@gmail.com" <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>,
        "ackerleytng@google.com" <ackerleytng@google.com>,
        "jarkko@kernel.org" <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Wei W Wang <wei.w.wang@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 02, 2023, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 11/2/2023 1:36 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > KVM_CAP_MEMORY_FAULT_INFO is x86 only, is it better to put this function to
> > > <asm/kvm_host.h>?
> > I'd prefer to keep it in generic code, as it's highly likely to end up there
> > sooner than later.  There's a known use case for ARM (exit to userspace on missing
> > userspace mapping[*]), and I'm guessing pKVM (also ARM) will also utilize this API.
> > 
> > [*]https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230908222905.1321305-8-amoorthy@google.com
> 
> I wonder how this CAP is supposed to be checked in userspace, for guest
> memfd case? 

It's basically useless for guest_memfd.

> 	if (!kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_MEMORY_FAULT_INFO) &&
> 	    run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT)
> 		abort("unexpected KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT");
> 
> In my implementation of QEMU patches, I find it's unnecessary. When
> userspace gets an exit with KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT, it implies
> "KVM_CAP_MEMORY_FAULT_INFO".
> 
> So I don't see how it is necessary in this series. Whether it's necessary or
> not for [*], I don't have the answer but we can leave the discussion to that
> patch series.

It's not strictly necessary there either.

However, Oliver felt (and presumably still feels) quite strongly, and I agree,
that neither reporting extra information shouldn't be tightly coupled to
KVM_CAP_EXIT_ON_MISSING or KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD.

E.g. if userspace develops a "standalone" use case for KVM_CAP_MEMORY_FAULT_INFO,
userspace should be able to check for support without having to take a dependency
on KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD, especially since because KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD may not be
supported, i.e. userspace should be able to do:

	if (!kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_MEMORY_FAULT_INFO))
		abort("KVM_CAP_MEMORY_FAULT_INFO required for fancy feature XYZ");