[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231009200608.GJ800259@ZenIV>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 21:06:08 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH gmem FIXUP] kvm: guestmem: do not use a file system
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 07:32:48AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Yeah, we found that out the hard way. Is using the "secure" variant to get a
> per-file inode a sane approach, or is that abuse that's going to bite us too?
>
> /*
> * Use the so called "secure" variant, which creates a unique inode
> * instead of reusing a single inode. Each guest_memfd instance needs
> * its own inode to track the size, flags, etc.
> */
> file = anon_inode_getfile_secure(anon_name, &kvm_gmem_fops, gmem,
> O_RDWR, NULL);
Umm... Is there any chance that your call site will ever be in a module?
If not, you are probably OK with that variant. I don't like the details
of that interface (anon_inode_getfile_secure(), that is), but that's
a separate story and your use wouldn't make things harder to clean up.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists