On 02/03/2023 14:52, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> Hello Joao,
>
> On 3/2/23 14:24, Joao Martins wrote:
>> On 27/02/2023 14:09, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>>> On 2/22/23 18:49, Avihai Horon wrote:
>>>> --- a/hw/vfio/common.c
>>>> +++ b/hw/vfio/common.c
>>>> @@ -320,6 +320,41 @@ const MemoryRegionOps vfio_region_ops = {
>>>> * Device state interfaces
>>>> */
>>>> +typedef struct {
>>>> + unsigned long *bitmap;
>>>> + hwaddr size;
>>>> + hwaddr pages;
>>>> +} VFIOBitmap;
>>>> +
>>>> +static VFIOBitmap *vfio_bitmap_alloc(hwaddr size)
>>>> +{
>>>> + VFIOBitmap *vbmap = g_try_new0(VFIOBitmap, 1);
>>>
>>> I think using g_malloc0() for the VFIOBitmap should be fine. If QEMU can
>>> not allocate a couple of bytes, we are in trouble anyway.
>>>
>>
>> OOM situations are rather unpredictable, and switching to g_malloc0 means we
>> will exit ungracefully in the middle of fetching dirty bitmaps. And this
>> function (vfio_bitmap_alloc) overall will be allocating megabytes for
>> terabyte
>> guests.
>>
>> It would be ok if we are initializing, but this is at runtime when we do
>> migration. I think we should stick with g_try_new0. exit on failure should be
>> reserved to failure to switch the kernel migration state whereby we are
>> likely
>> to be dealing with a hardware failure and thus requires something more
>> drastic.
>
> I agree for large allocation :
>
> vbmap->bitmap = g_try_malloc0(vbmap->size);
>
> but not for the smaller ones, like VFIOBitmap. You would have to
> convert some other g_malloc0() calls, like the one allocating 'unmap'
> in vfio_dma_unmap_bitmap(), to be consistent.
>
> Given the size of VFIOBitmap, I think it could live on the stack in
> routine vfio_dma_unmap_bitmap() and routine vfio_get_dirty_bitmap()
> since the reference is not kept.
>
> The 'vbmap' attribute of vfio_giommu_dirty_notifier does not need
> to be a pointer either.
>
> vfio_bitmap_alloc(hwaddr size) could then become
> vfio_bitmap_init(VFIOBitmap *vbmap, hwaddr size).
>
> Anyhow, this is minor. It would simplify a bit the exit path
> and error handling.
>
FWIW, I've addressed this on v3, following your suggestion.
Joao
