linux-kernel - Re: Xen & VMI?

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:	Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:31:37 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...e.de>
Cc:	Avi Kivity <avi@...o.co.il>, 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?


* Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...e.de> wrote:

> Thanks.  That is actually the point I want make: although it is 
> *possible* to do that via VMI ROM, doing that using paravirt_ops is 
> *better* (no matter whenever the hypervisor is xen or kvm). [...]

but paravirt_ops is not an ABI ... nor will it ever become one. So the 
fact remains: the extra ABIs towards external hypervisors are quite an 
issue.

> [...] The very same discussion a couple months ago came to exactly 
> that conclusion.

uhm, that discussion mostly only involved people interested in external 
hypervisors, not those poor souls who have to fix up the mess in the end 
within Linux ;-) [ I am very sure all foxes would come to the happy 
conclusion that there is no need for any stinkin' lock on the barn ;-) ]

	Ingo
-
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/