linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] xen: Switch to virtual mapped linear p2m list

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]

Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:16:45 +0000
From:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To:	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>, <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	<boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] xen: Switch to virtual mapped linear p2m list

On 27/10/14 14:52, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Paravirtualized kernels running on Xen use a three level tree for
> translation of guest specific physical addresses to machine global
> addresses. This p2m tree is used for construction of page table
> entries, so the p2m tree walk is performance critical.
> 
> By using a linear virtual mapped p2m list accesses to p2m elements
> can be sped up while even simplifying code. To achieve this goal
> some p2m related initializations have to be performed later in the
> boot process, as the final p2m list can be set up only after basic
> memory management functions are available.

What impact does this have on 32-bit guests which don't have huge amount
of virtual address space?

I think a 32-bit guest could have up to 64 GiB of PFNs, which would
require a 128 MiB p2m array, which is too large?

David
--
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/