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 21:30:18 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
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?

* Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org> wrote:

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

i'm still arguing the same: that doing the same thing via overlapping, 
conflicting, redundant ABIs is crazy and contrary to the basic interests 
of Linux. It's like having 5 different, parallel variants of sys_open(), 
interfaced via a convoluted open_ops.

having data ABI coupling is one thing (filesystems, network formats, 
etc.). But having a 5-way function ABI coupling between system software 
running on the /same piece of hardware/, doing the same thing in essence 
is just madness in my book.

	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/