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: <1156282577.27114.38.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:36:17 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
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

Ar Maw, 2006-08-22 am 12:17 -0700, ysgrifennodd Zachary Amsden:
> 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.

Thankfully right now I can't think of a reason other than debugging when
using hardware VMX

> > - 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.

Ok that bit seemed pretty scary because you have to halt all the
processors in a known state (which probably means in an IPI handler)
before you patch. If you have code thats great.

Alan

-
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/