linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 06/29] virtio-mem: generalize virtio_mem_owned

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: <a36e7757-13c2-f84e-09a6-6db6516b9ba1@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:37:04 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/29] virtio-mem: generalize virtio_mem_owned_mb()

On 15.10.20 10:32, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 02:53:00PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Avoid using memory block ids. Rename it to virtio_mem_contains_range().
>>
>> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c | 9 +++++----
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
>> index 6bbd1cfd10d3..821143db14fe 100644
>> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
>> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
>> @@ -500,12 +500,13 @@ static bool virtio_mem_overlaps_range(struct virtio_mem *vm,
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> - * Test if a virtio-mem device owns a memory block. Can be called from
>> + * Test if a virtio-mem device contains a given range. Can be called from
>>  * (notifier) callbacks lockless.
>>  */
>> -static bool virtio_mem_owned_mb(struct virtio_mem *vm, unsigned long mb_id)
>> +static bool virtio_mem_contains_range(struct virtio_mem *vm, uint64_t start,
>> +				      uint64_t size)
>> {
>> -	return mb_id >= vm->first_mb_id && mb_id <= vm->last_mb_id;
>> +	return start >= vm->addr && start + size <= vm->addr + vm->region_size;
> 
> Do we have some reason to do this change?

Big Block Mode :)

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb