linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h

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: <44EB584A.5070505@vmware.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:17:30 -0700
From:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h

Alan Cox wrote:
>
> - Stacked hypervisors stomping each others functions
>   

Possibly an issue, but why would you ever want stacked paravirt-ops?  
You're only talking to the hypervisor directly above you, and there is 
only one of those.

> - Locking required to do updates: and remember our lock functions use
> methods in the array
>   

Yes, locking is an issue, but it is possible to do.  You just need to 
stop interrupts, NMIs, and faults on all processors simultaneously.  
Actually, it's not that scary - since you'll be doing it in a hypervisor.

> - If we boot patch inline code to get performance natively its almost
> impossible to then revert that.
>   

You can patch back over it.  I've already implemented the locking and 
repatching bits for VMI.

Zach
-
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/