On 22.04.2022 16:07, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 9:43 AM Tamas K Lengyel <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Allow specify distinct parts of the fork VM to be reset. This is useful when >> a >> fuzzing operation involves mapping in only a handful of pages that are known >> ahead of time. Throwing these pages away just to be re-copied immediately is >> expensive, thus allowing to specify partial resets can speed things up. >> >> Also allow resetting to be initiated from vm_event responses as an >> optimization. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tamas K Lengyel <[email protected]> > > Patch ping. Could I get a Reviewed-by if there are no objections?
Hmm, this is a little difficult. I'd be willing to give an ack, but that's meaningless for most of the code here. Besides a stylistic issue I did point out which I'm not happy with, I'm afraid I'm not good enough at mem-sharing and forking. Therefore I wouldn't want to offer an R-b. Considering the VM event interaction, maybe the BitDefender guys could take a stab? Of course you'd then still need a tool stack side ack. Jan
