linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC REPOST 1/2] paravirt: refactor struct paravirt_ops into smaller pv_*

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: <200710101635.10139.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:35:09 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
	Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@...il.com>,
	"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
	Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC REPOST 1/2] paravirt: refactor struct paravirt_ops into smaller pv_*_ops

On Wednesday 10 October 2007 04:24:24 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> [ I think this is a straight repost this patch, which addresses all the
> previous comments.  I'd like to submit this for .24 as the basis for a
> unified paravirt_ops.  Any objections? ]

Thanks Jeremy, I've actually taken time to finally review this in detail (I'm 
assuming you'll refactor as necessary after the x86 arch merger).

> +	OFFSET(PARAVIRT_enabled, pv_info, paravirt_enabled);

I think this gives the right answer for the wrong reasons?

> +struct paravirt_ops paravirt_ops;
> +

Do you actually need to define this?  See below...

> +DEF_NATIVE(, ud2a, "ud2a");

Hmm, that's ugly.  It was ugly before, but it's uglier now.  Maybe just 
use "unsigned char ud2a[] = { 0x0f, 0x0b };" in paravirt_patch_default?

>  }
>
>  struct paravirt_ops paravirt_ops = {
...
> +	.pv_info = {
> +		.name = "bare hardware",
> +		.paravirt_enabled = 0,
> +		.kernel_rpl = 0,
> +		.shared_kernel_pmd = 1,	/* Only used when CONFIG_X86_PAE is set */
> +	},

This is the bit I don't get.  Why not just declare struct pv_info pvinfo, etc, 
and use the declaration of struct paravirt_ops to get your unique 
offset-based identifiers for patching?

Rest looks fine...

Thanks!
Rusty.
-
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/