| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <45ED3F29.6000705@suse.de> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:15:05 +0100 From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...e.de> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, virtualization <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Xen & VMI? Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...e.de> wrote: > >> Oh, and btw: What was the reason why kvm paravirtualization doesn't >> use the vmi interface? > > cleanliness and performance: KVM doesnt need any artificial indirection. Xen doesn't need it either. > IMO the GPL-ed ROM portion of VMI was a bad idea to begin with. So why do you want xen use vmi then? > well, the VMI patches got into Linux with the claim that it's also > useful for Xen. So that claim was ... not actually true? As mentioned there was a proof-of-concept VMI ROM done by vmware. As far I know it translated the VMI ROM interface calls into xen hypercalls somehow, Zach probably has more details. So in the end you would still have two different hypervisor ABI's, the VMI ROM just hides that. cheers, Gerd -- Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...e.de> - 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