linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v4 5/5] x86,smp: limit spinlock delay on virtual machines

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:	Mon, 4 Feb 2013 15:02:03 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	aquini@...hat.com, walken@...gle.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	lwoodman@...hat.com, knoel@...hat.com, chegu_vinod@...com,
	raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 5/5] x86,smp: limit spinlock delay on virtual machines

On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:50:33AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> We need to know whether we are actually running on top of a
> hypervisor, not whether we have the code compiled in to do so.

Oh ok, I see.

The thing is, if CONFIG_PARAVIRT_GUEST is disabled, x86_hyper won't
exist, see: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135936817627848&w=2

So maybe the hypervisor guest should itself take care of this and upon
init it should set the max_spinlock_delay in init_hypervisor() instead?
Seems only fair to me...

> After all, the majority of distribution kernels will have
> CONFIG_PARAVIRT_GUEST set, but the majority of those kernels
> will be running bare metal...

Yeah :-)

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/