[PATCH v2 05/13] KVM: x86/mmu: Add support for KVM_MEM_USERFAULT

[Sean Christopherson]

On Wed, May 28, 2025, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2025, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 05:05:50PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > +	if ((old_flags ^ new_flags) & KVM_MEM_USERFAULT &&
> > > > +	    (change == KVM_MR_FLAGS_ONLY)) {
> > > > +		if (old_flags & KVM_MEM_USERFAULT)
> > > > +			kvm_mmu_recover_huge_pages(kvm, new);
> > > > +		else
> > > > +			kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot(kvm, old);
> > > 
> > > The call to kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot() should definitely go in common code.
> > > The fancy recovery logic is arch specific, but blasting the memslot when userfault
> > > is toggled on is not.
> > 
> > Not like anything in KVM is consistent but sprinkling translation
> > changes / invalidations between arch and generic code feels
> > error-prone.
> 
> Eh, leaving critical operations to arch code isn't exactly error free either :-)
> 
> > Especially if there isn't clear ownership of a particular flag, e.g. 0 -> 1
> > transitions happen in generic code and 1 -> 0 happens in arch code.
> 
> The difference I see is that removing access to the memslot on 0=>1 is mandatory,
> whereas any action on 1=>0 is not.  So IMO it's not arbitrary sprinkling of
> invalidations, it's deliberately putting the common, mandatory logic in generic
> code, while leaving optional performance tweaks to arch code.
> 
> > Even in the case of KVM_MEM_USERFAULT, an architecture could potentially
> > preserve the stage-2 translations but reap access permissions without
> > modifying page tables / TLBs.
> 
> Yes, but that wouldn't be strictly unique to KVM_MEM_USERFAULT.
> 
> E.g. for NUMA balancing faults (or rather, the PROT_NONE conversions), KVM could
> handle the mmu_notifier invalidations by removing access while keeping the PTEs,
> so that faulting the memory back would be a lighter weight operation.  Ditto for
> reacting to other protection changes that come through mmu_notifiers.
> 
> If we want to go down that general path, my preference would be to put the control
> logic in generic code, and then call dedicated arch APIs for removing protections.
> 
> > I'm happy with arch interfaces that clearly express intent (make this
> > memslot inaccessible), then the architecture can make an informed
> > decision about how to best achieve that. Otherwise we're always going to
> > use the largest possible hammer potentially overinvalidate.
> 
> Yeah, definitely no argument there given x86's history in this area.  Though if
> we want to tackle that problem straightaway, I think I'd vote to add the
> aforementioned dedicated APIs for removing protections, with a generic default
> implementation that simply invokes kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot().

Alternatively, we could punt on this issue entirely by not allowing userspace to
set KVM_MEM_USERFAULT on anything but KVM_MR_CREATE.  I.e. allow a FLAGS_ONLY
update to clear USERFAULT, but not set USERFAULT.

Other than emulating poisoned pages, is there a (potential) use case for setting
KVM_MEM_USERFAULT after a VM has been created?