linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/16] lguest: introduce vcpu structure

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: <5d6222a80801060933h7bc0d158h6e3b445c3db43291@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:33:53 -0200
From:	"Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <glommer@...il.com>
To:	"Rusty Russell" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	"Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <gcosta@...hat.com>, lguest@...abs.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/16] lguest: introduce vcpu structure

On Dec 25, 2007 9:54 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Friday 21 December 2007 00:33:40 Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > this patch makes room for the vcpu structure in lguest, already used in
> > this very same way at lguest64. It's the first part of our plan to
> > have lguest and lguest64 unified too.
>
> Hi Glauber!
>
>     These patches look really solid, thanks!  A few minor things, then I'll
> apply them and push them for 2.6.25.

Thanks for all comments. I was in vacations until today, and I'll
repost a new version that address all your comments
soon (that's why I'm not answering each of them individually now, have
to look carefully)

>     My only question is whether we should go further and vpu-ify routines like
> lgread and kill_guest, so that we can avoid more "lg" temporary variables...
Essentially, they don't need it, because they only touch
globally-visible variables (visible to the guest).
So it's more of an stylish thing. Using the vcpu in the signature can
have only one harm:
It needs the caller to also have a pointer to a vcpu, so we may end up
using it everywhere, like a domino fall.

Alternatively, in such functions that don't currently receive a vcpu
(nor they need to), we can convention to always pass
lg->vcpus[0] to lgread, kill_guest, etc. Which one do you prefer?

> > When two dogs hang out, you don't have new puppies right in the other day.
> > Some time has to be elapsed. They have to grow first. In this same spirit,
> > having these patches _do not_ mean smp guests can be launched (yet)
> > Much more work is to come, but this is the basic infrastructure.
>
> OK, that made me laugh...
\o/
> Thanks!
> Rusty.
>
>



-- 
Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net

"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
--
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/