[PATCH v3 1/1] KVM: arm64: Allow cacheable stage 2 mapping using VMA flags

[Oliver Upton]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 08:51:05AM +0000, Ankit Agrawal wrote:
> Hi, summarizing the discussion so far and outlining the next steps. The key points
> are as follows:
> 1. KVM cap to expose whether the kernel supports mapping cacheable PFNMAP:
> If the host doesn't have FWB, then the capability doesn't exist. Jason, Oliver, Caitlin
> and Sean points that this may not be required as userspace do not have
> much choice anyways. KVM has to follow the PTEs and userspace cannot ask
> for something different. However, Marc points that enumerating FWB support
> would allow userspace to discover the support and prevent live-migration
> across FWB and non-FWB hosts. Jason suggested that this may still be fine as
> we have already built in VFIO side protection where a live migration can be
> attempted and then fail because of late-detected HW incompatibilities.
> 
> 2. New memslot flag that VMM passes at memslot registration:
> Discussion point that this is not necessary and KVM should just follow the
> VMA pgprot.
> 
> 3. Fallback path handling for PFNMAP when the FWB is not set:
> Discussion points that there shouldn't be any fallback path and the memslot
> should just fail. i.e. KVM should not allow degrading cachable to non-cachable
> when it can't do flushing. This is to prevent the potential security issue
> pointed by Jason (S1 cacheable, S2 noncacheable).
> 
> 
> So AIU, the next step is to send out the updated series with the following patches:
> 1. Block cacheable PFN map in memslot creation (kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region)
> and during fault handling (user_mem_abort()).

Yes, we need to prevent the creation of stage-2 mappings to PFNMAP memory
that uses cacheable attributes in the host stage-1. I believe we have alignment
that this is a bugfix.

> 2. Enable support for cacheable PFN maps if S2FWB is enabled by following
> the vma pgprot (this patch).
> 
> 3. Add and expose the new KVM cap to expose cacheable PFNMAP (set to false
> for !FWB), pending maintainers' feedback on the necessity of this capability.

Regarding UAPI: I'm still convinced that we need the VMM to buy in to this
behavior. And no, it doesn't matter if this is some VFIO-based mapping
or kernel-managed memory.

The reality is that userspace is an equal participant in remaining coherent with
the guest. Whether or not FWB is employed for a particular region of IPA
space is useful information for userspace deciding what it needs to do to access guest
memory. Ignoring the Nvidia widget for a second, userspace also needs to know this for
'normal', kernel-managed memory so it understands what CMOs may be necessary when (for
example) doing live migration of the VM.

So this KVM CAP needs to be paired with a memslot flag.

 - The capability says KVM is able to enforce Write-Back at stage-2

 - The memslot flag says userspace expects a particular GFN range to guarantee
   Write-Back semantics. This can be applied to 'normal', kernel-managed memory
   and PFNMAP thingies that have cacheable attributes at host stage-1.

 - Under no situation do we allow userspace to create non-cacheable mapping at
   stage-2 for something PFNMAP cacheable at stage-1.

No matter what, my understanding is that we all agree the driver which provided the
host stage-1 mapping is the authoritative source for memory attributes compatible
with a given device. The accompanying UAPI is necessary for the VMM to understand how
to handle arbitrary cacheable mappings provided to the VM.

Thanks,
Oliver