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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 10:11:21 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers On 22/06/2018 17:02, Michal Hocko wrote: > @@ -7215,6 +7216,8 @@ void kvm_arch_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(struct kvm *kvm, > apic_address = gfn_to_hva(kvm, APIC_DEFAULT_PHYS_BASE >> PAGE_SHIFT); > if (start <= apic_address && apic_address < end) > kvm_make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_APIC_PAGE_RELOAD); > + > + return 0; This is wrong, gfn_to_hva can sleep. You could do the the kvm_make_all_cpus_request unconditionally, but only if !blockable is a really rare thing. OOM would be fine, since the request actually would never be processed, but I'm afraid of more uses of !blockable being introduced later. Thanks, Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists