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  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]
Date:   Fri, 20 Nov 2020 16:33:44 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <>
To:     Daniel Vetter <>,
        DRI Development <>,
        LKML <>
        Daniel Vetter <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Dan Williams <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        John Hubbard <>,
        Jérôme Glisse <>,
        Jan Kara <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 16/17] RFC: kvm: pass kvm argument to follow_pfn

On 19/11/20 15:41, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Both Christoph Hellwig and Jason Gunthorpe suggested that usage of
> follow_pfn by modules should be locked down more. To do so callers
> need to be able to pass the mmu_notifier subscription corresponding
> to the mm_struct to follow_pfn().
> This patch does the rote work of doing that in the kvm subsystem. In
> most places this is solved by passing struct kvm * down the call
> stacks as an additional parameter, since that contains the
> mmu_notifier.
> Compile tested on all affected arch.

It's a bit of a pity, it's making an API more complex (the point of 
gfn_to_pfn_memslot vs gfn_to_pfn is exactly that you don't need a 
"struct kvm*" and it's clear that you've already done the lookup into 
that struct kvm.

But it's not a big deal, and the rationale at least makes sense.  So,

Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <>


Powered by blists - more mailing lists