On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 3:04 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 28/04/21 00:36, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > -static int kvm_alloc_memslot_metadata(struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> > +static int kvm_alloc_memslot_metadata(struct kvm *kvm,
> > + struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> > unsigned long npages)
> > {
> > int i;
> > @@ -10892,7 +10950,7 @@ static int kvm_alloc_memslot_metadata(struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> > */
> > memset(&slot->arch, 0, sizeof(slot->arch));
> >
> > - r = alloc_memslot_rmap(slot, npages);
> > + r = alloc_memslot_rmap(kvm, slot, npages);
> > if (r)
> > return r;
> >
>
> I wonder why you need alloc_memslot_rmap at all here in
> kvm_alloc_memslot_metadata, or alternatively why you need to do it in
> kvm_arch_assign_memslots. It seems like only one of those would be
> necessary.
Oh, that's a good point. We need it in kvm_arch_assign_memslots
because of the race I identified in the thread for patch 5 of this
series, but we could remove it from kvm_alloc_memslot_metadata with
this patch.
Of course, it would be much nicer if we could just keep it in
kvm_alloc_memslot_metadata and find some other way to stop memslots
without rmaps from being inappropriately installed, if anyone has a
simpler way to accomplish that.
>
> Paolo
>
