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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <ecb949d1-4539-305f-0a84-1704834e37ba@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:31:48 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christophe de Dinechin <dinechin@...hat.com>,
        Christophe de Dinechin <christophe.de.dinechin@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 04/15] KVM: Implement ring-based dirty memory tracking

On 17/12/19 16:38, Peter Xu wrote:
> There's still time to persuade me to going back to it. :)
> 
> (Though, yes I still like current solution... if we can get rid of the
>  only kvmgt ugliness, we can even throw away the per-vm ring with its
>  "extra" 4k page.  Then I suppose it'll be even harder to persuade me :)

Actually that's what convinced me in the first place, so let's
absolutely get rid of both the per-VM ring and the union.  Kevin and
Alex have answered and everybody seems to agree.

Paolo