linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add I/O hypercalls for i386 paravirt

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]

Message-ID: <46CC2CE7.5000105@qumranet.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:32:39 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
CC:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add I/O hypercalls for i386 paravirt

Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Ah.  But that's mostly modules, so real in-core changes should be very 
>>     
>
> Yes that's the big difference. Near all paravirt ops are concentrated
> on the core kernel, but this one affects lots of people.
>
> And why "but"? -- modules are as important as the core kernel. They're
> not second citizens.
>   

It's not being second class; simply few modules are loaded at runtime, 
so most of the code impact is on disk.  The in-code impact is small.  If 
paravirt i/o insns are worthwhile, I don't think code size is an issue.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

-
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/