[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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