From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B9DEC5CFCF for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2026 15:56:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=CRIGDyui7/iSpuavFV7t+zECeLeeDurvll1eQGPo37s=; b=M1Bg9iT5X84Bkq1vmdUZE/lpfx 8RxBbNC/3s//gS/VrvRUMOTpx3RBhKgQ+0AZ5FO+bKAQwL4OzutmHnJkkSt7nIheVQPTKCCCfkTdD zX5LTM2loQWBIkea5pEDf056jZ1VlDYj8ybsz3W5us7M3R7iiJXNzNxSb2IyKva9Tfz5P0e7BwSaM oLqRwyXNORX+iaPQQXjnhMyBhwZSpKOEI3GB24GPz4BHr/9Qh+Snjq3alRVe8wERcV4igO74Q0SFG 3JFBvzKALUI7ft1EHIkmuxqGJpDFos6/n+veS/Yoq6uFIWjXBirBS0AG7PmIuaGeMN/iHFpoMYN7T KTWTSfNg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wuuGs-00000002tIh-0lmO; Fri, 14 Aug 2026 15:56:38 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wuuGp-00000002tIJ-3GKs for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 14 Aug 2026 15:56:37 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CFFE1595; Fri, 14 Aug 2026 08:56:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from raptor (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42E153F66F; Fri, 14 Aug 2026 08:56:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1786722993; bh=pO1uh/eAx9qjSA5hHMp+NLotsULWAPq29vo2yi7PFas=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=h/o/biFIBD78FA1J2iS8+bWrZRzOkrUBl5UuAYCq2nCvblz/SUPTEgQDLgbtgMlO+ m0ZhgWt/nGypSWosGJ0pwf0g0zYhNIE5Ri0pcl32rQjlroW7CZg87N7cCtJSxDli6T vkJasPOPiQAPCiC3nCirdy3uU7k+kbVTYlQ2Y0to= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 16:56:28 +0100 From: Alexandru Elisei To: Sean Christopherson Cc: David Hildenbrand , Mark Rutland , pbonzini@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, oupton@kernel.org, joey.gouly@arm.com, seiden@linux.ibm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, fuad.tabba@linux.dev Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] KVM: Dirty page logging for guest_memfd-only memslots Message-ID: References: <487aa57c-72ad-453b-971d-ca24a8380429@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260814_085635_988978_DEC8E687 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 30.17 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Sean, On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 06:03:54AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2026, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > We have a hardware feature that requires pages to always be mapped into S2. Some > > things I had in mind: > > > > 1) Page migration would not be a problem as long as hardware could be paused > > while migrating (e.g., kick all vCPUs). I doubt someone would implement that > > right now, but you could consider it an implementation detail that page > > migration cannot be supported right now. > > > > 2) Newer hardware could mitigate this problem, allowing the feature to support > > pages temporarily being unmapped from S2. > > > > 3) Disallowing page migration is really just one implication of "pages must > > always be mapped into S2". > > > > So what we really want is "if feature X is enabled and hardware requires it, > > always keep pages mapped into S2, which currently implies that page migration > > cannot be supported." > > > > Which isn't all that different to "if a confidential VM is run on current TDX > > hardware, always keep pages mapped into S2, which currently implies that page > > migration cannot be supported." > > > > So I was wondering whether the flow could be: > > > > User space enabled CPU feature for VM -> KVM knows that current hardware > > requires for that CPU feature to have S2 always mapped -> KVM tells guest_memfd > > that S2 must be always mapped / disables page migration. > > I'm a-ok with adding a flag to guest_memfd to communicate whether or not page > migration is allowed, because guest_memfd needs to actively support page migration. > > I'm not ok adding a flag telling guest_memfd that memory must always be mapped > in S2, because guest_memfd doesn't care. E.g. KVM doesn't yet support page > migration for SNP, but SNP tracks page ownership in an out-of-band table and so > KVM can map/unmap all guest memory from S2 at will. > > > That would be in contrast to user space having to guess that page migration on > > the current hardware with the current guest_memfd implementation does not > > support page migration, to then disable exactly that. If guest_memfd picks up support for another feature that might lead to memory being unmapped from stage 2 without userspace initiating it, would you be ok with that feature being gated by another guest_memfd flag? I get the feeling we're all on the same page, that guest_memfd will support a mode where memory isn't unmapped from stage 2, and right now the discussion is more about how that will be implemented. Thanks, Alex > > > > Does that explanation makes sense? I don't know the exact mechanism to do that, > > but that's just my high-level thinking. > > Yes, I'm supportive of KVM expressing to guest_memfd that page migration isn't > supported by the VM. I'm only objecting to expressing that memory must stay > mapped in S2, because guest_memfd doesn't care *why* page migration is or isn't > supported/allowed by a particular VM.