On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 13:17 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 03:20:37PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > The API documents that only flags and guest physical memory space can
> > be modified on an existing slot, but we don't enforce that the
> > userspace address cannot be modified. Instead we just ignore it.
> > This means that a user may think they've successfully moved both the
> > guest and user addresses, when in fact only the guest address changed.
> > Check and error instead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.william...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 8 +++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > index e426704..93213e1 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > @@ -779,13 +779,19 @@ int __kvm_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> >
> > r = -ENOMEM;
> >
> > - /* Allocate if a slot is being created */
> > + /*
> > + * Allocate if a slot is being created. If modifying a slot,
> > + * the userspace_addr cannot change.
> > + */
> > if (!old.npages) {
> > new.user_alloc = user_alloc;
> > new.userspace_addr = mem->userspace_addr;
> >
> > if (kvm_arch_create_memslot(&new, npages))
> > goto out_free;
> > + } else if (mem->userspace_addr != old.userspace_addr) {
> > + r = -EINVAL;
> > + goto out_free;
> > }
> >
> > /* Allocate page dirty bitmap if needed */
> >
>
> hmmm...does this mean that on a 'destroy', where npages is 0, the user
> has to set up userspace_addr correctly? If so, that would appear to be
> an unwanted change in semantics here.
Good point, it does change that. We could make this be (npages &&
mem->userspace_addr != old.userspace_addr) to avoid that case. Thanks,
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
