linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] KVM: x86: dynamic kvm_apic

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: <CANRm+CyGw8kmrCDuRpwg+EW_+C=NYG6MxrE-y+FZqs2HvrqEkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 2 Aug 2016 21:15:56 +0800
From:	Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To:	Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"Lan, Tianyu" <tianyu.lan@...el.com>,
	Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
	Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] KVM: x86: dynamic kvm_apic_map

2016-08-02 20:22 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>:
> 2016-08-02 19:39+0800, Wanpeng Li:
>> 2016-07-13 4:09 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>:
>> [...]
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
>>> @@ -152,14 +152,22 @@ static void recalculate_apic_map(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>         struct kvm_apic_map *new, *old = NULL;
>>>         struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>>>         int i;
>>> -
>>> -       new = kzalloc(sizeof(struct kvm_apic_map), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +       u32 max_id = 255;
>>
>> If this should be max_id = KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID? I have a patch on hand to
>> fix it, but I didn't know whether it is your desired behavior or not.
>
> No, we could just have static array then.  KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID is expected
> to be raised to INT_MAX and eventually UINT_MAX, so it would not be
> practical.  The dynamic array is there to avoid wasting space in the
> common case, where VMs have only low APIC IDs.
>
> Inintial patches had 255 to minimize a chance of regressions as the
> static array was that big, but starting with max_id = 0 is our goal and
> should be ok even without other changes.

I see, thanks. :)

Regards,
Wanpeng Li