linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kvm: remove in_range from kvm_io

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: <20090625123757.GA7121@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:37:57 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Cc:	avi@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mtosatti@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, markmc@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: remove in_range from kvm_io_device

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 08:08:04AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> The patch has been in circulation for weeks, is well tested/reviewed
> (and I hope its considered well written), and I want to get on with my
> life ;).

Hey, I feel your pain, I've been reviewing these ..

> Your proposal doesn't change the user->kern ABI, so any
> consolidation will be just an internal change to the kernel code only. 
> People can start using the interface today to build things, and we can
> fix up the internal code later once your proposals have had a chance to
> be shaped after review, etc (which I know from experience can take a
> while and change radically though the course ;).
> 
> IOW: The only thing waiting does is hide the history of the edit, since
> whatever change is proposed is invariably the same amount of work for me
> to convert it over.  Its purely a question of whether its folded into
> the history or visible as two change records.  Based on that. I don't
> see any problem with it just going in now.  Its certainly ready from my
> perspective.
> 
> So I guess the question is: What's your objection?

No objections, only comments ;)

> (BTW: I am talking about the yet unpublished "v9" which addresses all
> your other comments sans the io_bus interface changes.

I thought we agreed on the io_bus approach. What changed?

>  Will push out
> later today)

BTW, is the group removal race handled there somehow?
Here's what I have in mind:
kvm does
	lock
	dev = find
	unlock

	<---------- at this point group device is removed

	write access to device that has been removed


-- 
MST
--
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/