[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5af8e2ff-4bde-9652-fb25-4fe1f74daae2@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 10:01:50 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Christophe de Dinechin <dinechin@...hat.com>,
"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Kevin Kevin <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/21] KVM: X86: Don't track dirty for
KVM_SET_[TSS_ADDR|IDENTITY_MAP_ADDR]
On 09/01/20 15:57, Peter Xu wrote:
> -int __x86_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm, int id, gpa_t gpa, u32 size)
> +/*
> + * If `uaddr' is specified, `*uaddr' will be returned with the
> + * userspace address that was just allocated. `uaddr' is only
> + * meaningful if the function returns zero, and `uaddr' will only be
> + * valid when with either the slots_lock or with the SRCU read lock
> + * held. After we release the lock, the returned `uaddr' will be invalid.
> + */
In practice the address is still protected by the refcount, isn't it?
Only destroying the VM could invalidate it.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists