linux-kernel - Re: ABI coupling to hypervisors via CONFIG

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:	Fri, 9 Mar 2007 22:47:04 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: ABI coupling to hypervisors via CONFIG_PARAVIRT


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

> * Ingo Molnar (mingo@...e.hu) wrote:
> > ( if there is no backwards compatibility promise then i have zero
> >   complaints: then paravirt_ops + the hypercall just becomes another API
> >   internal to Linux that we can improve at will. But that is not
> >   realistic: if we provide CONFIG_VMI today, people will expect to have
> >   CONFIG_VMI in the future too. )
> 
> This was the whole reason we didn't adopt VMI directly.  Instead, 
> preferring an kernel internal API, pv_ops, that can adopt naturally as 
> the kernel changes, and it is the pv_ops client code's (or backend as 
> it is also referred to) responsibility to do whatever is necessary to 
> map back to the hypervisor's ABI.  The goal was explicitly to keep 
> things internal fluid as usual.  As I said before, no matter how you 
> slice it there's glue code somewhere to deal with compatibilities. And 
> it's always been the virtualization platform's responsibility to deal 
> with the changes.

For example, for the sake of argument, if the VMI ABI consisted only of 
a single call:

  #define VMI_CALL_NOP           1

then obviously it would be very hard for VMI to adopt to changes in the 
kernel - no matter how many smarts you put into paravirt_ops :-)

agreed? That is the center of my argument. Does the VMI ABI limit the 
Linux kernel or not?

As we increase the complexity of a hypercall ABI, more and more things 
can be implemented via it. So _obviously_ there is a 'minimum level of 
capability' for every hypercall ABI that is /required/ to keep the Linux 
kernel 100% flexible. If in some tricky corner the ABI has some stupid 
limit or assumption, it might stiffle future changes in Linux.

i am worried whether /any/ future change to the upstream kernel's design 
can be adopted via paravirt_ops, via the current VMI ABI. And by /any/ i 
mean truly any. And whether that can be done is not a function of the 
flexibility of paravirt_ops, it's a function of the flexibility of the 
VMI ABI.

	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/