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  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:   Wed, 2 Jan 2019 08:47:25 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <>
To:     Fengguang Wu <>,
        Andrew Morton <>
Cc:     Linux Memory Management List <>,
        Yao Yuan <>,,
        LKML <>, Fan Du <>,
        Peng Dong <>,
        Huang Ying <>,
        Liu Jingqi <>,
        Dong Eddie <>,
        Zhang Yi <>,
        Dan Williams <>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 11/21] kvm: allocate page table pages from DRAM

On 12/26/18 5:14 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> +static unsigned long __get_dram_free_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> +{
> +       struct page *page;
> +
> +       page = __alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT, 0, numa_node_id());
> +       if (!page)
> +	       return 0;
> +       return (unsigned long) page_address(page);
> +}

There seems to be a ton of *policy* baked into these patches.  For
instance: thou shalt not allocate page tables pages from PMEM.  That's
surely not a policy we want to inflict on every Linux user until the end
of time.

I think the more important question is how we can have the specific
policy that this patch implements, but also leave open room for other
policies, such as: "I don't care how slow this VM runs, minimize the
amount of fast memory it eats."

Powered by blists - more mailing lists