[PATCH v17 00/24] KVM: Enable mmap() for guest_memfd
Sean Christopherson
seanjc at google.com
Wed Aug 27 05:57:43 PDT 2025
On Wed, Aug 27, 2025, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 7/30/25 00:54, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Paolo,
> >
> > The arm64 patches have been Reviewed-by Marc, and AFAICT the x86 side of
> > things is a go. Barring a screwup on my end, this just needs your approval.
> >
> > Assuming everything looks good, it'd be helpful to get this into kvm/next
> > shortly after rc1. The x86 Kconfig changes in particular create semantic
> > conflicts with in-flight series.
> >
> >
> > Add support for host userspace mapping of guest_memfd-backed memory for VM
> > types that do NOT use support KVM_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTE_PRIVATE (which isn't
> > precisely the same thing as CoCo VMs, since x86's SEV-MEM and SEV-ES have
> > no way to detect private vs. shared).
> >
> > mmap() support paves the way for several evolving KVM use cases:
> >
> > * Allows VMMs like Firecracker to run guests entirely backed by
> > guest_memfd [1]. This provides a unified memory management model for
> > both confidential and non-confidential guests, simplifying VMM design.
> >
> > * Enhanced Security via direct map removal: When combined with Patrick's
> > series for direct map removal [2], this provides additional hardening
> > against Spectre-like transient execution attacks by eliminating the
> > need for host kernel direct maps of guest memory.
> >
> > * Lays the groundwork for *restricted* mmap() support for guest_memfd-backed
> > memory on CoCo platforms [3] that permit in-place
> > sharing of guest memory with the host.
> >
> > Based on kvm/queue.
>
> Applied to kvm/next, thanks!
Thank you!
FWIW, I did separate run of the patches and came up with the same resolutions
for the arm64 changes, so I'm sure they're perfect ;-)
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list