Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] softmmu/physmem: fallback to opening guest RAM file as readonly in a MAP_PRIVATE mapping

[Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 05:26:24PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> I just started looking into the origins of "-mem-path".
> 
> Originally c902760fb2 ("Add option to use file backed guest memory"):
> 
> * Without MAP_POPULATE support, we use MAP_PRIVATE
> * With MAP_POPULATE support we use MAP_PRIVATE if mem_prealloc was not
>   defined.
> 
> It was only used for hugetlb. The shared memory case didn't really matter:
> they just needed a way to get hugetlb pages into the VM. Opening the file
> R/W even with MAP_PRIVATE kind-of made sense in that case, it was an
> exclusive owner.
> 
> Discarding of RAM was not very popular back then I guess: virtio-mem didn't
> exist, virtio-balloon doesn't even handle hugetlb today really, postcopy
> didn't exist.
> 
> 
> I guess that's why nobody really cared about "-mem-path" MAP_PRIVATE vs.
> MAP_SHARED semantics: just get hugetlb pages into the VM somehow.
> 
> Nowadays, "-mem-path" always defaults to MAP_PRIVATE. For the original
> hugetlb use case, it's still good enough. For anything else, I'm not so
> sure.

Ok this answers my other question then on the compat bit.. thanks.  Feel
free to ignore there.

But then I'd lean back towards simply adding a fdperm=; that seems the
simplest, since even if with a compat bit, we still face risk of breaking
-mem-path users for anyone using new machine types.

-- 
Peter Xu