linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/9] KVM: MMU: fask check write-protect for direct mmu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:45:59 +0800
From:	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
CC:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] KVM: MMU: fask check write-protect for direct mmu

BTW, they are some bug fix patches on -master branch, but
it is not existed on -next branch:
commit: f411930442e01f9cf1bf4df41ff7e89476575c4d
commit: 85b7059169e128c57a3a8a3e588fb89cb2031da1

It causes code conflict if we do the development on -next.

On 07/20/2012 08:39 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:can
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 09:53:29PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> If it have no indirect shadow pages we need not protect any gfn,
>> this is always true for direct mmu without nested
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> Xiao,
> 
> What is the motivation? Numbers please.
> 
> In fact, what case was the original indirect_shadow_pages conditional in
> kvm_mmu_pte_write optimizing again?
> 
> 
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/