[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YVzwpjSmGuVczgEG@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 00:41:10 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: David Stevens <stevensd@...omium.org>
Cc: Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] KVM: x86: Fix allocation sizeof argument
On Wed, Oct 06, 2021, David Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:41 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> > Hrm, this fails to free the gfn_track allocations for previous memslots. The
> > on-demand rmaps code has the exact same bug (it frees rmaps for previous lpages
> > in the _current_ slot, but does not free previous slots).
> >
> > And having two separate flows (and flags) for rmaps vs. gfn_track is pointless,
> > and means we have to maintain two near-identical copies of non-obvious code.
>
> I agree that's better than my patch. I can put together a new patch
> once it's decided whether or not my patch should be dropped.
All yours, unless Paolo wants to fight you for it :-) I'm totally ok doing
cleanup/fixes on top.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists