Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] kvm "virtio pmem" device

Pankaj Gupta
2019-01-14T07:15:40Z

> > Until you have images (and hence host page cache) shared between
> > multiple guests. People will want to do this, because it means they
> > only need a single set of pages in host memory for executable
> > binaries rather than a set of pages per guest. Then you have
> > multiple guests being able to detect residency of the same set of
> > pages. If the guests can then, in any way, control eviction of the
> > pages from the host cache, then we have a guest-to-guest information
> > leak channel.
>
> I don't think we should ever be considering something that would allow a
> guest to evict page's from the host's pagecache [1]. The guest should
> be able to kick its own references to the host's pagecache out of its
> own pagecache, but not be able to influence whether the host or another
> guest has a read-only mapping cached.
>
> [1] Unless the guest is allowed to modify the host's file; obviously
> truncation, holepunching, etc are going to evict pages from the host's
> page cache.

This is so correct. Guest does not not evict host page cache pages directly.
In case of virtio-pmem & DAX, guest clears guest page cache exceptional entries.
Its solely decision of host to take action on the host page cache pages.

In case of virtio-pmem, guest does not modify host file directly i.e don't
perform hole punch & truncation operation directly on host file.

Thanks,
Pankaj