On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 01:40:59PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 08/04/21 12:05, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:31:01AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:33:03PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > Both kvm (in bd2fae8da794 ("KVM: do not assume P
On 08/04/21 12:05, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:31:01AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:33:03PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
Both kvm (in bd2fae8da794 ("KVM: do not assume PTE is writable after
follow_pfn")) and vfio (in 07956b6269d3 ("vfio/type1: Use
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:31:01AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:33:03PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Both kvm (in bd2fae8da794 ("KVM: do not assume PTE is writable after
> > follow_pfn")) and vfio (in 07956b6269d3 ("vfio/type1: Use
> > follow_pte()")) have lost thei
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:33:03PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Both kvm (in bd2fae8da794 ("KVM: do not assume PTE is writable after
> follow_pfn")) and vfio (in 07956b6269d3 ("vfio/type1: Use
> follow_pte()")) have lost their callsites of follow_pfn(). All the
> other ones have been switched over
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 08:17:10PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 09:52:11AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:33:03PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > Both kvm (in bd2fae8da794 ("KVM: do not assume PTE is writable after
> > > follow_pfn")) and vfi
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 09:52:11AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:33:03PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Both kvm (in bd2fae8da794 ("KVM: do not assume PTE is writable after
> > follow_pfn")) and vfio (in 07956b6269d3 ("vfio/type1: Use
> > follow_pte()")) have lost thei
On 24/03/21 13:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
I think this is the right thing to do.
Alex is working on fixing VFIO and while kvm is still racy using
follow pte, I think they are working on it too?
Yeah, or at least we have a plan.
Paolo
___
dri-devel
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:33:03PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Both kvm (in bd2fae8da794 ("KVM: do not assume PTE is writable after
> follow_pfn")) and vfio (in 07956b6269d3 ("vfio/type1: Use
> follow_pte()")) have lost their callsites of follow_pfn(). All the
> other ones have been switched over
Both kvm (in bd2fae8da794 ("KVM: do not assume PTE is writable after
follow_pfn")) and vfio (in 07956b6269d3 ("vfio/type1: Use
follow_pte()")) have lost their callsites of follow_pfn(). All the
other ones have been switched over to unsafe_follow_pfn because they
cannot be fixed without breaking use
