On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 01:32:08PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > >> 3. Why not request the guest_memfd to be mmap-able just to be able to > >> set a memory policy? > > > > the eventual intent is to enable this for fully confidential, > > host-unmapped guest, isolated to a particular memory device. > > > > Requiring a mapping to get node-placement is quite defeating the point. > > You only need a VMA, not actually mapped/faulted pages. So I don't immediately > see the problem? >
There is no VMA here - only an inode (GMEM_I), which is where the shared policy hangs off of. So yeah, if there was a vma, that's i suppose the missing component needed to hook up userland mempolicy to all of this - but I would have thought creating a VMA for guest_memfd is hacky and confusing (since its intent is to basically not have a VMA). Is there a series I missed that was proposing this? ~Gregory
