Re: [PATCH v1 06/13] KVM: arm64: Add support for KVM_MEM_USERFAULT

Oliver Upton
2024-12-04T23:07:40Z

Hi James,

On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 07:13:41PM +0000, James Houghton wrote:
> Adhering to the requirements of KVM Userfault:
>
> 1. When it is toggled (either on or off), zap the second stage with
> kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot(). This is to (1) respect
> userfault-ness and (2) to reconstruct block mappings.
> 2. While KVM_MEM_USERFAULT is enabled, restrict new second-stage mappings
> to be PAGE_SIZE, just like when dirty logging is enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>
> ---
> I'm not 100% sure if kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot() is correct in
> this case (like if the host does not have S2FWB).

Invalidating the stage-2 entries is of course necessary for correctness
on the !USERFAULT -> USERFAULT transition, and the MMU will do the right
thing regardless of whether hardware implements FEAT_S2FWB.

What I think you may be getting at is the *performance* implications are
quite worrying without FEAT_S2FWB due to the storm of CMOs, and I'd
definitely agree with that.

> @@ -2062,6 +2069,20 @@ void kvm_arch_commit_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> enum kvm_mr_change change)
> {
> bool log_dirty_pages = new && new->flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES;
> + u32 changed_flags = (new ? new->flags : 0) ^ (old ? old->flags : 0);
> +
> + /*
> + * If KVM_MEM_USERFAULT changed, drop all the stage-2 mappings so that
> + * we can (1) respect userfault-ness or (2) create block mappings.
> + */
> + if ((changed_flags & KVM_MEM_USERFAULT) && change == KVM_MR_FLAGS_ONLY)
> + kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot(kvm, old);

I'd strongly prefer that we make (2) a userspace problem and don't
eagerly invalidate stage-2 mappings on the USERFAULT -> !USERFAULT
change.

Having implied user-visible behaviors on ioctls is never good, and for
systems without FEAT_S2FWB you might be better off avoiding the unmap in
the first place.

So, if userspace decides there's a benefit to invalidating the stage-2
MMU, it can just delete + recreate the memslot.

--
Thanks,
Oliver