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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <2177074d-f610-0d86-7399-e63ba851346c@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 11:15:51 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>, Tom Roeder <tmroeder@...gle.com> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>, Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzbot+ded1696f6b50b615b630@...kaller.appspotmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kvm: x86/vmx: Use kzalloc for cached_vmcs12 On 15/01/19 03:43, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> - vmx->nested.cached_vmcs12 = kmalloc(VMCS12_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL); >> + vmx->nested.cached_vmcs12 = kzalloc(VMCS12_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL); >> if (!vmx->nested.cached_vmcs12) >> goto out_cached_vmcs12; > Obviously not your code, but why do we allocate VMCS12_SIZE instead of > sizeof(struct vmcs12)? I get why we require userspace to reserve the > full 4k, but I don't understand why KVM needs to allocate the reserved > bytes internally. It's just cleaner and shorter code to copy everything in and out, instead of having to explicitly zero the slack. Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists