linux-kernel - Re: + stupid-hack-to-make-mainline-build.patch added to -mm tree

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:	Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:14:29 -0800
From:	Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>
To:	tglx@...utronix.de
CC:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: + stupid-hack-to-make-mainline-build.patch added to -mm tree

On 03/07/2007 01:19 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 13:02 -0800, Dan Hecht wrote:
>> On 03/07/2007 12:57 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 12:11 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>>> Dan Hecht wrote:
>>>>> Jeremy, I saw you sent out the Xen version earlier, thanks.  Here's
>>>>> ours for reference (please excuse any formating issues); it's also
>>>>> lean. We'll send out a proper patch later after some more testing:
>>>> So the interrupt side of the clockevent comes through the virtual apic? 
>>>> Where does evt->handle_event get called?
>>>
>>>>         /* We use normal irq0 handler on cpu0. */
>>>>         time_init_hook();
>>> That's exactly the thing I ranted about before. We keep the historic
>>> view of emulated hardware and just wrap it into enough glue code instead
>>> of doing an abstract design, which just gets rid of those hardware
>>> assumptions at all. That's the big advantage of paravirtualization, but
>>> the current way on paravirt ops is just ignoring this.
>>>
>> Are you saying you would prefer we create our own irq handler something 
>> like this rather than using the standard i386 handlers?
>>
>> irqreturn_t vmi_timer_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> {
>>     local_event->event_handler(local_event);
>>     return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> }
>>
>> ??  That's fine with me.
> 
> I prefer _ONE_ generic abstract implementation of a clock event, which
> can be used by all hypervisors. Please keep all your wiring and ideas of
> how to best emulate a i386 system away from the kernel as far as you
> can.
> 
> Please sit down with the other hypervisor folks and define the five
> functions you need to interact between clockevents and the particular
> hypervisor and implement it once.
> 
> Then you can change and evolve your idea of how handle them best in your
> hypervisor code, where it belongs.
> 

Okay, I guess we are essentially back to the "XEN & VMI" thread.  Let's 
just keep that discussion in one place.
-
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/