linux-kernel - Re: Is: axe read_tscp pvops call. Was: Re: [RFC] ACPI S3 and Xen (suprisingly small\!).

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:	Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:35:15 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
	lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: Is: axe read_tscp pvops call. Was: Re: [RFC] ACPI S3 and Xen
 (suprisingly small\!).

On 10/17/2012 09:54 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>
>> Could you do an audit for other pvops calls that have no users?  If
>> the *only* user is lguest, we should talk about it, too...
>
> I can do that - but I don't want to be hasty here. There is a bit of
> danger here - for example the read_pmc (or read_tsc) is not in use right
> now. But it might be when one starts looking at making perf be able to
> analyze the hypervisor (hand-waving the implementation details). So while
> removing read_pmc now sounds good, it might be needed in the future.
>

We do not keep a pvop around just because it "might be needed in the 
future".  That's just crazy.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/