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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070306194612.GG19575@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
Date:	Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:46:12 -0800
From:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...e.de>,
	virtualization <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Xen & VMI?

* Ingo Molnar (mingo@...e.hu) wrote:
> yes - but de-facto contradicted by the Xen paravirt_ops patches sent to 
> lkml ;)

There's no intrinsic value to the Xen on VMI approach that's superior
to Xen on pv_ops (not to mention the complications that it causes).

What are you driving at?  You seem to be arguing that abstractions
are bad unless done via ABI's.  ACPI....

thanks,
-chris
-
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/