On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 04:27:13PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 08:47:28PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > Anthony Liguori wrote: > > >Do others expect KVM to just cope with the virtual mapping being changed > > >out from underneath of it? > > > > > > > kvm should cope with both malicious guests and malicious (or buggy) host > > userspace. It's difficuly to analyze, but mmu notifiers might be > > necessary for the latter. > > The reason for the host crash with madvise is that the rmap code relies > on the guest process virtual mappings from not disappearing while there > are active shadow mappings. > > How to proceed now? Do we want to efficiently support ballooning without > mmu notifiers? If so, an ioctl to zap the mmu is necessary as discussed > before.
Err, actually zapping the mmu is necessary to guarantee guest will not use stale shadow entries vs entries pointing to old unreacheable pages. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
