[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZSRgdgQe3fseEQpf@google.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 13:20:06 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
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, Al Viro wrote:
> 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.
Yes, this code can be compiled as a module. I assume there issues with the inode
outliving the module?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists