linux-kernel - Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure

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: <46EB1285.5050807@goop.org>
Date:	Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:00:21 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>
CC:	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure

Nakajima, Jun wrote:
>>> one.  Start the kvm leaves at 0x40001000 or something?
>>>
>>>       
>> Yeah, that works with me.
>>     
>
> To me this is the beginning of fragmentation. Why do we need different
> and VMM-specific Linux paravirtualization for hardware-assisted
> virtualization? That would not be good for Linux.
>   

On the contrary.  Xen already has a hypercall interface, and we need to
keep supporting it.  If we were to also support a vmm-independent
interface (aka "kvm interface"), then we need to be able to do that in
parallel.  If we have a cpuid leaf clash, then its impossible to do so;
if we define the new interface to be disjoint from other current users
of cpuid, then we can support them concurrently.

    J
-
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/