linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 04/15] KVM: Implement ring-based dirty memory tracking

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: <c01d0732-2172-2573-8251-842e94da4cfc@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:28:54 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 04/15] KVM: Implement ring-based dirty memory tracking

On 17/12/19 17:24, Peter Xu wrote:
>> No, please pass it all the way down to the [&] functions but not to
>> kvm_write_guest_page.  Those should keep using vcpu->kvm.
> Actually I even wanted to refactor these helpers.  I mean, we have two
> sets of helpers now, kvm_[vcpu]_{read|write}*(), so one set is per-vm,
> the other set is per-vcpu.  IIUC the only difference of these two are
> whether we should consider ((vcpu)->arch.hflags & HF_SMM_MASK) or we
> just write to address space zero always.

Right.

> Could we unify them into a
> single set of helper (I'll just drop the *_vcpu_* helpers because it's
> longer when write) but we always pass in vcpu* as the first parameter?
> Then we add another parameter "vcpu_smm" to show whether we want to
> consider the HF_SMM_MASK flag.

You'd have to check through all KVM implementations whether you always
have the vCPU.  Also non-x86 doesn't have address spaces, and by the
time you add ", true" or ", false" it's longer than the "_vcpu_" you
have removed.  So, not a good idea in my opinion. :D

Paolo