linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max

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: <539f71a6-f62a-c7d2-51a8-bd062a639e87@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Nov 2021 13:07:41 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup.patel@....com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by
 kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()

On 11/16/21 17:34, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> -		r = num_online_cpus();
> +		/*
> +		 * ARM64 treats KVM_CAP_NR_CPUS differently from all other
> +		 * architectures, as it does not always bound it to
> +		 * num_online_cpus(). It should not matter much because this
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS (sorry for the typo in my suggestion).  I'll fix it 
when applying.

Paolo

> +		 * is just an advisory value.
> +		 */
> +		r = min_t(unsigned int, num_online_cpus(),
> +			  kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus());