linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] selftests: KVM: align guest physical memory base address to 1GB

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAL715WJBMe8tPX=Tch_v=LiGNjPZpCqQVZKM=8GtzaJ_6Q1bXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Sep 2021 12:56:46 -0700
From:   Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] selftests: KVM: align guest physical memory base
 address to 1GB

> 1gb may not be appropriate for all architectures and we don't want to _just_
> test 1gb aligned memslots.  The alignment should be tied to the backing store,
> even if the test is hardcoded to use THP, that way the alignment logic works
> without modification if the backing store is changed.

Agree on that.
>
> I had a patch[1] that did this, let me go resurrect that series.  My series got
> put on the backburner in favor of Yanan's series[2] which did a much better
> job of identifying/handling the host virtual address alignment, but IIRC my
> approach for handling GPA was correct.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20210210230625.550939-6-seanjc@google.com/
> [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210330080856.14940-1-wangyanan55@huawei.com
>

Thanks for the info. I will use patch [1] instead of mine in the next version.

Regards.
-Mingwei