Re: [V2 PATCH 0/6] KVM: selftests: selftests for fd-based private memory

[Ackerley Tng]

Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> > [...]

> > Chao, I'll work on

> > + Running conversion tests for non-overlapping GPA ranges of
> >    same/different memslots from multiple vcpus
> > + Deleting memslots with restricted memfd while guests are being
> >    executed
> > + Installing multiple memslots with ranges within the same restricted
> >    mem files

> > this week.

> Thanks Ackerley. Looks good to me.

> BTW, for whom may have interest, below are the testcases I added:
> https://github.com/chao-p/linux/commit/24dd1257d5c93acb8c8cc6c76c51cf6869970f8a
> https://github.com/chao-p/linux/commit/39a872ef09d539ce0c953451152eb05276b87018
> https://github.com/chao-p/linux/commit/ddd2c92b268a2fdc6158f82a6169ad1a57f2a01d

> Chao

Hi Chao,

While I was working on the selftests I noticed that this could perhaps
be improved:

https://github.com/chao-p/linux/blob/ddd2c92b268a2fdc6158f82a6169ad1a57f2a01d/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c#L1035

We should use a temporary variable to hold the result of fget(fd).

As it is now, if the user provides any invalide fd, like -1,
slot->restrictedmem.file would be overwritten and lost.

We cannot update slot->restrictedmem.file until after the
file_is_restrictedmem() check.

For now there isn't a big problem because kvm_restrictedmem_bind() is
only called on a new struct kvm_memory_slot, but I think this should be
changed in case the function is used elsewhere in future.

Ackerley