On 02.05.2018 09:48, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 2 May 2018 09:16:50 +0200 > Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 05/01/2018 12:01 AM, Marc Orr wrote: >>> Actually, I don't follow. Radim said: >>> "I'd prefer to have one patch that switches all architectures to vzalloc >>> (this patch + hunk for x86)..." >>> >>> But Christian said vzalloc doesn't work for s390. >> >> I said >> --- >> I dont think this is necessarily safe. This contains kvm_arch and you >> would need to verify that no architecture has data in struct kvm_arch >> that must be allocated with kmalloc. Fo example on s390 kernel virtual >> == kernel real for kmalloc so some driver might rely on that. >> FWIW, it looks like the s390 struct kvm_arch is fine, but this requires >> more review I guess. >> --- >> >> so my statement was more on the "it could break" side. >> Right now it looks like that most critical data structure (crypto control >> block, stfle and others) are already pointers and being allocated >> separately but this needs some review. >> >> David, Conny, Janosch, can you please also check struct kvm_arch on z for >> data structures that are passed directly to the hardware? Those will break >> if we switch to vzalloc. > > From what I can see, the structures sensitive to kzalloc vs. vzalloc > are all in separately allocated blocks. Yes, that's also what I can see.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
