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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 16:44:59 +0100 From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch> To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> Cc: DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 16/17] RFC: kvm: pass kvm argument to follow_pfn callsites On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 4:33 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote: > > 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. Yeah I noticed that, I think pushing the lookups down should work, but that's a fairly large-scale change. I didn't want to do that for the RFC since it would distract from the actual change/goal. -Daniel > But it's not a big deal, and the rationale at least makes sense. So, > > Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> > > Paolo -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
Powered by blists - more mailing lists