[PATCH v1 1/3] softmmu/physmem: fallback to opening guest RAM file as readonly in a MAP_PRIVATE mapping

[David Hildenbrand]

On 11.08.23 18:54, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 06:25:14PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 11.08.23 18:22, Peter Xu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 06:17:05PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> We wouldn't touch "-mem-path".
>>>
>>> But still the same issue when someone uses -object memory-backend-file for
>>> hugetlb, mapping privately, expecting ram discard to work?
>>>
>>> Basically I see that example as, "hugetlb" in general made the private
>>> mapping over RW file usable, so forbidden that anywhere may take a risk.
>>
>> These users can be directed to using hugetlb
>>
>> a) using MAP_SHARED
>> b) using memory-backend-memfd, if MAP_PRIVATE is desired
>>
>> Am I missing any important use case? Are we being a bit to careful about
>> virtio-balloon and postcopy simply not being available for these corner
>> cases?
> 
> The current immediate issue is not really mem=rw + fd=rw + private case
> (which was a known issue), but how to make mem=rw + fd=ro + private work
> for ThinnerBloger, iiuc.
> 
> I'd just think it safer to expose that cap to solve problem A (vm
> templating) without affecting problem B (fallcate-over-private not working
> right), when B is uncertain.

Right, and I'm thinking about if B is worth the effort.

> 
> I'm also copy Daniel & libvirt list in case there's quick comment from
> there. Say, maybe libvirt never use private mapping on hugetlb files over
> memory-backend-file at all, then it's probably fine.

libvirt certainly allows setting <access mode="shared"/> with <source 
type="file">.

Could be that they also end up mapping "<hugepages>" to 
memory-backend-file instead of memory-backend-memfd (e.g., compatibility 
with older kernels?).

> 
> In all cases, you and Igor should have the final grasp; no stand on a
> strong opinon from my side.

I do value your opinion, so I'm still trying to figure out if there are 
sane use cases that really need a new parameter. Let's recap:

When opening the file R/O, resulting in fallocate() refusing to work:
* virtio-balloon will fail to discard RAM but continue to "be alive"
* virtio-mem will discard any private pages, but cannot free up disk
   blocks using fallocate.
* postcopy would fail early

Postcopy:
* Works on shmem (MAP_SHARED / MAP_PRIVATE)
* Works on hugetlb (MAP_SHARED / MAP_PRIVATE)
* Does not work on file-backed memory (including MAP_PRIVATE)

We can ignore virtio-mem for now. What remains is postcopy and 
virtio-balloon.

memory-backend-file with MAP_PRIVATE on shmem/tmpfs results in a double 
memory consumption, so we can mostly cross that out as "sane use case". 
Rather make such users aware of that :D

memory-backend-file with MAP_PRIVATE on hugetlb works. virtio-balloon is 
not really compatible with hugetlb, free-page-reporting might work 
(although quite non-nonsensical). So postcopy as the most important use 
case remains.

memory-backend-file with MAP_PRIVATE on file-backed memory works. 
postcopy does not apply. virtio-balloon should work I guess.


So the two use cases that are left are:
* postcopy with hugetlb would fail
* virtio-balloon with file-backed memory cannot free up disk blocks

Am I missing a case?

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb