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
| ||
|
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists