linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 02/29] virtio-mem: simplify calculation in virtio_mem_mb_state_prepare_next

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: <390378ee-6061-6941-772e-17ea52627a95@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:01:03 +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 02/29] virtio-mem: simplify calculation in
 virtio_mem_mb_state_prepare_next_mb()

On 15.10.20 12:00, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 10:00:15AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 15.10.20 06:02, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 02:52:56PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> We actually need one byte less (next_mb_id is exclusive, first_mb_id is
>>>> inclusive). Simplify.
>>>>
>>>> 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 | 4 ++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
>>>> index a1f5bf7a571a..670b3faf412d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
>>>> @@ -257,8 +257,8 @@ static enum virtio_mem_mb_state virtio_mem_mb_get_state(struct virtio_mem *vm,
>>>>  */
>>>> static int virtio_mem_mb_state_prepare_next_mb(struct virtio_mem *vm)
>>>> {
>>>> -	unsigned long old_bytes = vm->next_mb_id - vm->first_mb_id + 1;
>>>> -	unsigned long new_bytes = vm->next_mb_id - vm->first_mb_id + 2;
>>>> +	unsigned long old_bytes = vm->next_mb_id - vm->first_mb_id;
>>>> +	unsigned long new_bytes = old_bytes + 1;
>>>
>>> This is correct.
>>>
>>> So this looks more like a fix?
>>
>> We allocate an additional new page "one memory block too early".
>>
>> So we would allocate the first page for blocks 0..510, and already
>> allocate the second page with block 511, although we could have fit it
>> into the first page. Block 512 will then find that the second page is
>> already there and simply use the second page.
>>
>> So as we do it consistently, nothing will go wrong - that's why I
>> avoided using the "fix" terminology.
>>
> 
> Yes, my feeling is this is not a simplification. Instead this is a more
> precise calculation.
> 
> How about use this subject?
> 
> virtio-mem: more precise calculation in virtio_mem_mb_state_prepare_next_mb()

Agreed, thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb