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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 13:45:34 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] KVM: x86: Interrupt-based mechanism for async_pf 'page present' notifications On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 01:04:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 25/05/20 16:41, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > Concerns were expressed around (ab)using #PF for KVM's async_pf mechanism, > > it seems that re-using #PF exception for a PV mechanism wasn't a great > > idea after all. The Grand Plan is to switch to using e.g. #VE for 'page > > not present' events and normal APIC interrupts for 'page ready' events. > > This series does the later. > > > > Changes since v1: > > - struct kvm_vcpu_pv_apf_data's fields renamed to 'flags' and 'token', > > comments added [Vivek Goyal] > > - 'type1/2' names for APF events dropped from everywhere [Vivek Goyal] > > - kvm_arch_can_inject_async_page_present() renamed to > > kvm_arch_can_dequeue_async_page_present [Vivek Goyal] > > - 'KVM: x86: deprecate KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS' patch added. > > > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20200511164752.2158645-1-vkuznets@redhat.com/ > > QEMU patches for testing: https://github.com/vittyvk/qemu.git (async_pf2_v2 branch) > > I'll do another round of review and queue patches 1-7; 8-9 will be > queued later and separately due to the conflicts with the interrupt > entry rework, but it's my job and you don't need to do anything else. Hi Paolo, I seee 1-7 got merged for 5.8. When you say patch 8-9 will be queue later, you mean later in 5.8 or it will held till 5.9 merge window opens. Thanks Vivek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists