[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <487F53FB.20708@qumranet.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:15:23 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm-devel <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Anthony N. Liguori [imap]" <aliguori@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: KVM overflows the stack
Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 23:08 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
>
>> > Yes, things like kvm_lapic_state are way too big to be on the
>> stack.
>>
>> I had a quick look at the code, and my worry about dynamic allocation
>> would be that handling allocation failure seems like it might get
>> tricky. Eg for handling struct kvm_pv_mmu_op_buffer (which is 528 bytes
>> on the stack in kvm_pv_mmu_op()) can you deal with an mmu op failing?
>>
>
> Well, you *better* be able to deal with it. :)
>
> This code is also doing a *ton* of copy_to/from_user(). If userspace
> had one of its input buffers swapped out (or one of its output buffers
> not faulted in yet) and we're out of memory enough to be failing
> kmallocs() then we're sure as heck also going to failing the user
> copies.
>
> I think it's a non-issue.
>
>
Yes, it's designed to be restartable. Returning 0 should be fine.
We can reduce the buffer size to 256 though. I wouldn't want an
allocation in this hot path.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists