Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

Andy Lutomirski
2022-09-09T19:11:50Z

On Fri, Sep 9, 2022, at 7:32 AM, Kirill A . Shutemov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 09:48:35PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On 8/19/22 17:27, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:00:41PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2022, Kirill A . Shutemov wrote:
>> > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:40:12PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If your memory could be swapped, that would be enough of a good reason
>> > > > > to make use of shmem.c: but it cannot be swapped; and although there
>> > > > > are some references in the mailthreads to it perhaps being swappable
>> > > > > in future, I get the impression that will not happen soon if ever.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If your memory could be migrated, that would be some reason to use
>> > > > > filesystem page cache (because page migration happens to understand
>> > > > > that type of memory): but it cannot be migrated.
>> > > >
>> > > > Migration support is in pipeline. It is part of TDX 1.5 [1]. And swapping
>> > > > theoretically possible, but I'm not aware of any plans as of now.
>> > > >
>> > > > [1] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/intel-trust-domain-extensions.html
>> > >
>> > > I always forget, migration means different things to different audiences.
>> > > As an mm person, I was meaning page migration, whereas a virtualization
>> > > person thinks VM live migration (which that reference appears to be about),
>> > > a scheduler person task migration, an ornithologist bird migration, etc.
>> > >
>> > > But you're an mm person too: you may have cited that reference in the
>> > > knowledge that TDX 1.5 Live Migration will entail page migration of the
>> > > kind I'm thinking of. (Anyway, it's not important to clarify that here.)
>> >
>> > TDX 1.5 brings both.
>> >
>> > In TDX speak, mm migration called relocation. See TDH.MEM.PAGE.RELOCATE.
>> >
>>
>> This seems to be a pretty bad fit for the way that the core mm migrates
>> pages. The core mm unmaps the page, then moves (in software) the contents
>> to a new address, then faults it in. TDH.MEM.PAGE.RELOCATE doesn't fit into
>> that workflow very well. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it won't just
>> work.
>
> Hm. From what I see we have all necessary infrastructure in place.
>
> Unmaping is NOP for inaccessible pages as it is never mapped and we have
> mapping->a_ops->migrate_folio() callback that allows to replace software
> copying with whatever is needed, like TDH.MEM.PAGE.RELOCATE.
>
> What do I miss?

Hmm, maybe this isn't as bad as I thought.

Right now, unless I've missed something, the migration workflow is to unmap (via try_to_migrate) all mappings, then migrate the backing store (with ->migrate_folio(), although it seems like most callers expect the actual copy to happen outside of ->migrate_folio(), and then make new mappings. With the *current* (vma-based, not fd-based) model for KVM memory, this won't work -- we can't unmap before calling TDH.MEM.PAGE.RELOCATE.

But maybe it's actually okay with some care or maybe mild modifications with the fd-based model. We don't have any mmaps, per se, to unmap for secret / INACCESSIBLE memory. So maybe we can get all the way to ->migrate_folio() without zapping anything in the secure EPT and just call TDH-MEM.PAGE.RELOCATE from inside migrate_folio(). And there will be nothing to fault back in. From the core code's perspective, it's like migrating a memfd that doesn't happen to have my mappings at the time.

--Andy