[RFC PATCH 1/3] KVM: guest_memfd: Use memslot id to keep track of associated memslots

[Sean Christopherson]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 7/7/26 19:05, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> > Hi Sean,
> > 
> > On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 02:43:23PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> >>> To enable memslot operations, KVM maintains two arrays of memslots, and an
> >>> RCU pointer to the active (in use) array. Changes are made first to the
> >>> inactive array, and the RCU pointer is updated to point to the inactive
> >>> array, which becomes active.
> >>>
> >>> The guest_memfd file maintains an xarray of pointers to memslots that use
> >>> it as the memory provider. After the RCU pointer to the active memslots is
> >>> updated and until SRCU is synchronized, readers can observe the old or the
> >>> new value for the active array, and therefore the old or the new pointer
> >>> for a given memslot.  For memslot creation or deletion that is not an issue
> >>> for guest_memfd, as readers will either read the same memslot pointer saved
> >>> by the guest_memfd file, or a non-existing memslot.
> >>>
> >>> But when changing the flags for a memslot, readers can read two different
> >>> and non-NULL memslot pointers. 
> >>
> >> And?  Why does that matter?  KVM memslot updates aren't atomic.  Practically
> >> speaking, they _can't_ be made atomic. Userspace is required to quiesce all
> >> activity that must not observe inconsistent state, i.e. userspace must pause
> >> (stop running) vCPUs when performing a memslot update.
> > 
> > Is that true when KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES is toggled for a memslot?
> 
> Good point.

Oh, right, that's "fine" because there's never an intermediate state where there's
an INVALID_SLOT.

> > As far as I can tell, KVM today tolerates VCPUs running while the
> > KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES flags is being changed for a memslot. And by
> > tolarate I mean that VCPUs that are running when the flag is changed don't
> > return an error from KVM_RUN. If changing a memslot while VCPUs are running
> > were fatal, I would think that KVM would want to take vcpu->mutex for all
> > VCPUs to keep them from running. Or is it a case of KVM allowing userspace
> > to shoot themselves in the foot if they really want it?
> > 
> > When the KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES flags is being changed, VCPUs handling a
> > guest fault can observe either the old memslot, with the old flags, or the
> > new memslot, with the flag changed, but they still continue running without
> > returning an error.
> 
> Staring at QEMU, kvm_log_start()+kvm_log_stop() do not call
> accel_ioctl_inhibit_begin() etc.
> 
> So at least QEMU does not force VCPUs out of KVM when only updating flags.

Yeah, as above, that should work, and KVM needs to maintain that support.

> One option would be to require user space to do that also when starting+stopping
> dirty page logging. (I'd assume that should work, but it might be tricky
> depending on in which context it is called from QEMU migration code -- whether
> we hold the BQL)