linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt

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]

Message-Id: <1154931222.7642.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:13:41 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@....de>
Cc:	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86 paravirt_ops: implementation of paravirt_ops

On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 07:39 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 07 August 2006 06:47, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > This patch does the dumbest possible replacement of paravirtualized
> > instructions: calls through a "paravirt_ops" structure.  Currently
> > these are function implementations of native hardware: hypervisors
> > will override the ops structure with their own variants.
> 
> You should call it HAL - that would make it clearer what it is.

People get visions of grandeur when HAL is mentioned: they think it'll
abstract everything.  I really only want to do the minimum needed for
the hypervisors we have on the table today.

Maybe one day it will abstract everything, then we can call it a HAL.
But I won't be doing that work 8)

> I think I would prefer to patch always. Is there a particular
> reason you can't do that?

We could patch all the indirect calls into direct calls, but I don't
think it's worth bothering: most simply don't matter.

The implementation ensures that someone can get boot on a new hypervisor
by populating the ops struct.  Later they can go back and implement the
patching stuff.

> It would be better to merge this with the existing LOCK prefix patching
> or perhaps the normal alternative() patcher (is there any particular
> reason you can't use it?)
> 
> Three alternative patching mechanisms just seems to be too many

Each backend wants a different patch, so alternative() doesn't cut it.
We could look at generalizing alternative() I guess, but it works fine
so I didn't want to touch it.

Rusty.
-- 
Help! Save Australia from the worst of the DMCA: http://linux.org.au/law

-
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/