linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH WIP 2/6] xen/arm: Introduce xen_guest

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:	Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:49:08 +0100
From:	Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@...rix.com>
To:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
CC:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"Tim (Xen.org)" <tim@....org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH WIP 2/6] xen/arm: Introduce xen_guest_init

David Vrabel wrote:
> On 09/07/12 15:45, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 05:14:41PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> We used to rely on a core_initcall to initialize Xen on ARM, however
>>> core_initcalls are actually called after early consoles are initialized.
>>> That means that hvc_xen.c is going to be initialized before Xen.
>>>
>>> Given the lack of a better alternative, just call a new Xen
>>> initialization function (xen_guest_init) from xen_cons_init.
>>>
>>> xen_guest_init has to be arch independant, so write both an ARM and an
>>> x86 implementation. The x86 implementation is currently empty because we
>>> can be sure that xen_hvm_guest_init is called early enough.
>>>
>>> Probably we can get rid of this as soon as we have better DT support.
>> What is DT?
> 
> Device Tree.  It's a binary describing the hardware and some system
> configuration that is passed to the kernel by the boot loader or (in
> this case) the hypervisor.  Vaguely analogous to ACPI except it's not
> crazy ;).
> 
> We really should get the device tree bindings sorted out before
> accepting any kernel side patches.  I think we can do this even if Xen's
> device tree support is incomplete.

Will this be passed from the hypervisor to the linux kernel using a
specific mechanism (different than the native one)?

--
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/