linux-kernel - Support of lguest?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 15 May 2017 16:09:25 +0200
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        lguest@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Support of lguest?

Lguest and Xen pv-guests are the only users of pv_mmu_ops (with the
one exception of the .exit_mmap member, which is being used by Xen
HVM-guests, too).

As it is possible now to build a kernel without Xen pv-guest support
while keeping PVH and PVHVM support, I thought about putting most
pv_mmu_ops functions in #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_HAS_PVMMU sections. If there
wouldn't be lguest...

So my question: is anybody still using lguest or would like to keep it?

If yes, I'd add CONFIG_PARAVIRT_MMU selected by CONFIG_XEN_PV and
CONFIG_LGUEST_GUEST.

If no, I'd remove lguest support and just use CONFIG_XEN_HAS_PVMMU,
in case nobody would like me to use CONFIG_PARAVIRT_MMU even if
lguest isn't there any more.

Juergen