linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] mmu notifier provide context informations

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: <20190201210230.GA11643@quack2.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 1 Feb 2019 22:02:30 +0100
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        Ross Zwisler <zwisler@...nel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] mmu notifier provide context informations

On Thu 31-01-19 11:10:06, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> 
> Andrew what is your plan for this ? I had a discussion with Peter Xu
> and Andrea about change_pte() and kvm. Today the change_pte() kvm
> optimization is effectively disabled because of invalidate_range
> calls. With a minimal couple lines patch on top of this patchset
> we can bring back the kvm change_pte optimization and we can also
> optimize some other cases like for instance when write protecting
> after fork (but i am not sure this is something qemu does often so
> it might not help for real kvm workload).
> 
> I will be posting a the extra patch as an RFC, but in the meantime
> i wanted to know what was the status for this.
> 
> Jan, Christian does your previous ACK still holds for this ?

Yes, I still think the approach makes sense. Dan's concern about in tree
users is valid but it seems you have those just not merged yet, right?

								Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR