linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 5 May 2009 16:17:18 -0700
From:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
To:	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
Cc:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support

* Gregory Haskins (gregory.haskins@...il.com) wrote:
> So you would never have someone making a generic
> hypercall(KVM_HC_MMU_OP).  I agree.

Which is why I think the interface proposal you've made is wrong.  There's
already hypercall interfaces w/ specific ABI and semantic meaning (which
are typically called directly/indirectly from an existing pv op hook).

But a free-form hypercall(unsigned long nr, unsigned long *args, size_t count)
means hypercall number and arg list must be the same in order for code
to call hypercall() in a hypervisor agnostic way.

The pv_ops level need to have semantic meaning, not a free form
hypercall multiplexor.

thanks,
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/