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: <46EB6556.5020506@goop.org>
Date:	Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:53:42 -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:
> The hypervisor detection machanism is generic, and the signature
> returned is implentation specific. Having a list of all hypervisor
> signatures sounds fine to me as we are detecting vendor-specific
> processor(s) in the native. And I don't expect the list is large. 
>
>   

I'm confused about what you're proposing.  I was thinking that a kernel
looking for the generic hypervisor interface would check for a specific
signature at some cpuid leaf, and then go about using it from there.  If
not, how does is it supposed to detect the generic hypervisor interface?

    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/