linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 00/18] KVM: s390: pv: implement lazy destroy for reboot

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]

Date:   Thu, 14 Jul 2022 11:17:21 +0200
From:   Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, borntraeger@...ibm.com, thuth@...hat.com,
        pasic@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, scgl@...ux.ibm.com,
        mimu@...ux.ibm.com, nrb@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 00/18] KVM: s390: pv: implement lazy destroy for
 reboot

On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 08:59:00 +0200
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 6/28/22 15:56, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> > Previously, when a protected VM was rebooted or when it was shut down,
> > its memory was made unprotected, and then the protected VM itself was
> > destroyed. Looping over the whole address space can take some time,
> > considering the overhead of the various Ultravisor Calls (UVCs). This
> > means that a reboot or a shutdown would take a potentially long amount
> > of time, depending on the amount of used memory.
> > 
> > This patchseries implements a deferred destroy mechanism for protected
> > guests. When a protected guest is destroyed, its memory can be cleared
> > in background, allowing the guest to restart or terminate significantly
> > faster than before.
> >   
> 
> Patches 1-12 have spent a considerable amount of time in the CI and I'd 
> like to queue them to be able to focus on the rest of the series.
> 
> Patch 9 will need two small fixups since there are two conflicts where a 
> line was introduced before your addition of the include and the struct 
> kvm_s390_pv mmu_notifier member. I.e. it's more of a patch history 
> problem than a real conflict.
> 
> I'd fix that up when queuing if you're ok with it?

ok for me