Jes Sorensen wrote: > Zhang, Xiantao wrote: >> Jes >> Good work! I ever talked about the issue with Avi and wanted to >> enable the logic with the following patch, and Avi thought it may >> lead to security issues, so deferred to now :) >> >> One comment: We still need the logic to save and restore the vcpu's >> stack for vcpu resuming to the guest in the same environment. Maybe >> you can allocate one buf to save it in kvm_reg structure. Xiantao > > Hi Xiantao, > > I am with Avi on this one - we shouldn't be passing in pointers like > that. Either we can increase the size of kvm_regs as you mention, but > it will become *huge* since the stack is 64KB, or we introduce a new > ioctl just to handle the stack. > > Do you think it would be a problem having the second ioctl for this? I > would prefer breaking it into two to avoid the kernel having to > allocate a 128KB chunk for kvm_regs. Fine to me to add the ioctl, and it should make the logic clear. Xiantao -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
