linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/12] KVM: introduce new API for getting/switching dirty bitmaps

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: <4BEA44B8.7050409@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Date:	Wed, 12 May 2010 15:03:36 +0900
From:	Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
CC:	Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>, avi@...hat.com,
	agraf@...e.de, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	x86@...nel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, arnd@...db.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/12] KVM: introduce new API for getting/switching
 dirty bitmaps


>>> One alternative would be:
>>>
>>> KVM_SWITCH_DIRTY_LOG passing the address of a bitmap. If the active
>>> bitmap was clean, it returns 0, no switch performed. If the active
>>> bitmap was dirty, the kernel switches to the new bitmap and returns 1.
>>>
>>> And the responsability of cleaning the new bitmap could also be left
>>> for userspace.
>>>
>>
>> That is a beautiful approach but we can do that only when we give up using
>> GET api.
>>
>>
>> I follow you and Avi's advice about that kind of maintenance policy!
>> What do you think?
>
> If you introduce a switch ioctl that frees the bitmap vmalloc'ed by the
> current set_memory_region (if its not freed already), after pointing the
> memslot to the user supplied one, it should be fine?
>

You mean switching from vmalloc'ed(not do_mmap'ed) one to user supplied one?

It may be possible but makes things really complicated in my view:
until some point we use set_bit, and then use set_bit_user, etc.

IMO:
  - # of slots is limited and the size of dirty_bitmap_old pointer is not problematic.
  - Both user side and kernel side need not allocate buffers every time and once
    paired buffers are registered, we will reuse the buffers until user side orders
    to stop logging.
  - We have a tiny advantage if we need not copy_from_user to get a bitmap address
    for switch ioctl.

  => So I think having two __user bitmaps is not a bad thing.
--
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/