linux-kernel - Re: VMware, x86

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, 04 May 2007 14:04:42 -0700
From:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:	Petr Vandrovec <petr@...are.com>, nigel@...el.suspend2.net,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: VMware, x86_64 and 2.6.21.

Eric W. Biederman wrote:

> Is this linux running on vmware or vmware running on linux?
>   

VMware running on Linux.

> This sounds like playing with fire.  Although I suppose you could do it generally
> by making software irqs trigger a general protection fault.
>   

Better if you don't have to; the whole point of the swirq is faster 
handling.

> What we currently have is: 
> int assign_irq_vector(int irq, cpumask_t);
>
> It has a number of interesting properties such as you can change
> the vector assignment at runtime, and we can migrate the irq
> between cpus.
>   

Yes, but still not enough here.

> That is pretty much the architecture we have to support msi.  Although
> irq != vector not even at a fixed offset.
>   

It doesn't look like you can safely allocate an exclusive IRQ here 
however - the IO-APIC could always route a hardware IRQ for the matching 
vector right on top of you unless, I'm misreading something.

Zach
-
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/