On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 4:33 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 19/11/20 15:41, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Both Christoph Hellwig and Jason Gunthorpe suggested that usage of > > follow_pfn by modules should be locked down more. To do so callers > > need to be able to pass the mmu_notifier subscription corresponding > > to the mm_struct to follow_pfn(). > > > > This patch does the rote work of doing that in the kvm subsystem. In > > most places this is solved by passing struct kvm * down the call > > stacks as an additional parameter, since that contains the > > mmu_notifier. > > > > Compile tested on all affected arch. > > It's a bit of a pity, it's making an API more complex (the point of > gfn_to_pfn_memslot vs gfn_to_pfn is exactly that you don't need a > "struct kvm*" and it's clear that you've already done the lookup into > that struct kvm. Yeah I noticed that, I think pushing the lookups down should work, but that's a fairly large-scale change. I didn't want to do that for the RFC since it would distract from the actual change/goal. -Daniel > But it's not a big deal, and the rationale at least makes sense. So, > > Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Paolo -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
