On Mon, Oct 20, 2025, Nikita Kalyazin wrote: > From: Nikita Kalyazin <[email protected]> > > write syscall populates guest_memfd with user-supplied data in a generic > way, ie no vendor-specific preparation is performed. If the request is > not page-aligned, the remaining bytes are initialised to 0. > > write is only supported for non-CoCo setups where guest memory is not > hardware-encrypted.
Please include all of the "why". The code mostly communicates the "what", but it doesn't capture why write() support is at all interesting, nor does it explain why read() isn't supported. > Signed-off-by: Nikita Kalyazin <[email protected]> > --- > virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ There's a notable lack of uAPI and Documentation chanegs. I.e. this needs a GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_xxx along with proper documentation. And while it's definitely it's a-ok to land .write() in advance of the direct map changes, we do need to at least map out how we want the two to interact, e.g. so that we don't end up with constraints that are impossible to satisfy. > 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c b/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c > index 94bafd6c558c..f4e218049afa 100644 > --- a/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c > +++ b/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c > @@ -380,6 +380,8 @@ static int kvm_gmem_mmap(struct file *file, struct > vm_area_struct *vma) > > static struct file_operations kvm_gmem_fops = { > .mmap = kvm_gmem_mmap, > + .llseek = default_llseek, > + .write_iter = generic_perform_write, > .open = generic_file_open, > .release = kvm_gmem_release, > .fallocate = kvm_gmem_fallocate, > @@ -390,6 +392,49 @@ void kvm_gmem_init(struct module *module) > kvm_gmem_fops.owner = module; > } > > +static int kvm_kmem_gmem_write_begin(const struct kiocb *kiocb, > + struct address_space *mapping, > + loff_t pos, unsigned int len, > + struct folio **foliop, > + void **fsdata) Over-aggressive wrapping, this can be static int kvm_kmem_gmem_write_begin(const struct kiocb *kiocb, struct address_space *mapping, loff_t pos, unsigned int len, struct folio **folio, void **fsdata) or static int kvm_kmem_gmem_write_begin(const struct kiocb *kiocb, struct address_space *mapping, loff_t pos, unsigned int len, struct folio **folio, void **fsdata) if we want to bundle pos+len. > +{ > + struct file *file = kiocb->ki_filp; ki_filp is already a file, and even if it were a "void *", there's no need for a local variable. > + struct inode *inode = file_inode(file); > + pgoff_t index = pos >> PAGE_SHIFT; > + struct folio *folio; > + > + if (!kvm_gmem_supports_mmap(inode)) Checking for MMAP is neither sufficient nor strictly necessary. MMAP doesn't imply SHARED, and it's not clear to me that mmap() support should be in any way tied to WRITE support. > + return -ENODEV; > + > + if (pos + len > i_size_read(inode)) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + folio = kvm_gmem_get_folio(inode, index); Eh, since "index" is only used once, my vote is to use "pos" and do the shift here, so that it's obvious that the input to kvm_gmem_get_folio() is being checked. > + if (IS_ERR(folio)) > + return -EFAULT; Why EFAULT? > + > + *foliop = folio; There shouldn't be any need for a local "folio". What about having the "out" param be just "folio"? E.g. static int kvm_kmem_gmem_write_begin(const struct kiocb *kiocb, struct address_space *mapping, loff_t pos, unsigned int len, struct folio **folio, void **fsdata) { struct inode *inode = file_inode(kiocb->ki_filp); if (!kvm_gmem_supports_write(inode)) return -ENODEV; if (pos + len > i_size_read(inode)) return -EINVAL; *folio = kvm_gmem_get_folio(inode, pos >> PAGE_SHIFT); if (IS_ERR(*folio)) return PTR_ERR(*folio); return 0; } > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int kvm_kmem_gmem_write_end(const struct kiocb *kiocb, > + struct address_space *mapping, > + loff_t pos, unsigned int len, > + unsigned int copied, > + struct folio *folio, void *fsdata) > +{ > + if (copied && copied < len) { Why check if "copied" is non-zero? I don't see why KVM should behave differently with respect to unwritten bytes if copy_folio_from_iter_atomic() fails on the first byte or the Nth byte. > + unsigned int from = pos & ((1UL << folio_order(folio)) - 1); Uh, isn't this just offset_in_folio()? > + > + folio_zero_range(folio, from + copied, len - copied); I'd probably be in favor of omitting "from" entirely, e.g. if (copied < len) folio_zero_range(folio, offset_in_folio(pos) + copied, len - copied); > + } > + > + folio_unlock(folio); > + folio_put(folio); > + > + return copied; > +}
