linux-kernel - Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v9 2/5] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_BALLOON

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:   Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:31:49 +0800
From:   Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC:     "virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org" <virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "qemu-devel@...gnu.org" <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "cornelia.huck@...ibm.com" <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "mgorman@...hsingularity.net" <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        "aarcange@...hat.com" <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "amit.shah@...hat.com" <amit.shah@...hat.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "liliang.opensource@...il.com" <liliang.opensource@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v9 2/5] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_BALLOON_CHUNKS

On 04/27/2017 07:20 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:03:34AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
>> Hi Michael, could you please give some feedback?
> I'm sorry, I'm not sure feedback on what you are requesting.
Oh, just some trivial things (e.g. use a field in the
header, hdr->chunks to indicate the number of chunks
in the payload) that wasn't confirmed.

I will prepare the new version with fixing the agreed issues,
and we can continue to discuss those parts if you still find
them improper.


>
> The interface looks reasonable now, even though there's
> a way to make it even simpler if we can limit chunk size
> to 2G (in fact 4G - 1). Do you think we can live with this
> limitation?
Yes, I think we can. So, is it good to change to use the
previous 64-bit chunk format (52-bit base + 12-bit size)?


>
> But the code still needs some cleanup.
>

OK. We'll also still to discuss your comments in the patch 05.

Best,
Wei