linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] KVM: MMU: introduce SPTE_WRITE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4F961F47.6060305@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:34:31 +0800
From:	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
CC:	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] KVM: MMU: introduce SPTE_WRITE_PROTECT bit

On 04/24/2012 08:45 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:


>> I think it is not too hard to check. :)
> 
> You are minimizing the possible impact these modifications have.
> 
> Perhaps you should prepare code under mmu_lock to handle concurrent spte
> R->W updates first, and then later introduce the concurrent updates. In
> a way that its clear for somebody reading the code that parallel updates
> can happen (say read spte once, work on local copy, later re-read spte).
> 


Good idea. I will refine it in the next version. Thank you, Marcelo! :)

--
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/