linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Kernel-based Virtual Machine

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]

Date:	Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:56:55 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Kernel-based Virtual Machine

Ar Sul, 2006-10-22 am 10:37 +0200, ysgrifennodd Avi Kivity:
> I like this.  Since we plan to support multiple vcpus per vm, the fs 
> structure might look like:

Three times the syscall overhead is bad for an emulation very bad for an
emulation of a CPU whose virtualisation is half baked.

> It's certainly a lot more code though, and requires new syscalls.  Since 
> this is a little esoteric does it warrant new syscalls?

I think not - ioctl exists to avoid adding a billion esoteric one user
syscalls. The idea of a VFS sysfs type view of the running vm is great
for tools however so I wouldn't throw it out entirely or see it as ioctl
versus fs.

-
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/