linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/13] KVM: kvm data structures

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]

Message-Id: <200610270055.45560.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:55:45 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/13] KVM: kvm data structures

On Thursday 26 October 2006 19:24, Avi Kivity wrote:
> +struct kvm {
> +       spinlock_t lock; /* protects everything except vcpus */
> +       int nmemslots;
> +       struct kvm_memory_slot memslots[KVM_MEMORY_SLOTS];
> +       struct list_head active_mmu_pages;
> +       struct kvm_vcpu vcpus[KVM_MAX_VCPUS];
> +       int memory_config_version;
> +       int busy;
> +};

Assuming that you move to the host-user == guest-real memory
model, will this data structure still be needed? It would
be really nice if a guest could simply consist of a number
of vcpu structures that happen to be used from threads in the
same process address space, but I find it hard to tell if
that is realistic.

	Arnd <><
-
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/