linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] KVM: SVM: Use seperate VMCB for L2 guests

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: <20110714134041.GE24072@8bytes.org>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:40:42 +0200
From:	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] KVM: SVM: Use seperate VMCB for L2 guests

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 04:26:39PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/14/2011 04:12 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>> Makes sense. I'll probably remove the lazy allocation and initialize
>> both VMCBs at vcpu-creation time. The memory foodprint is the same as
>> before because the hsave area was also allocated at the beginning.
>
> Related, would we need a pool of n_vmcbs/vmcb02s?

Probably. This depends on how nested-svm will be used I think. It is not
very hard to add if really needed. Some kind of LRU is certainly needed
too then.

> I guess the condition for reusing an n_vmcb would be: same vmcb_gpa and  
> at least one clean bit set?

Same vmcb_gpa is sufficient I think. I nothing is marked clean then it
is the same situation as if the vmcb_gpa is different.

	Joerg

--
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/