linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1200693248.21817.157.camel@bodhitayantram.eng.vmware.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:54:08 -0800
From:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	glommer@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de, ehabkost@...hat.com,
	jeremy@...p.org, avi@...ranet.com, anthony@...emonkey.ws,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	ak@...e.de, chrisw@...s-sol.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	hpa@...or.com, roland@...hat.com, mtosatti@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] Tree fixes for PARAVIRT

On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 22:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> 
> > > The first fix is not even specific for PARAVIRT, and it's actually 
> > > preventing the whole tree from booting.
> > 
> > on CONFIG_EFI, indeed :)
> 
> but in exchange you broke all of 32-bit with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y. Which 
> means you did not even build-test it on 32-bit, let alone boot test 
> it...

Why are we rushing so much to do 64-bit paravirt that we are breaking
working configurations?  If the developement is going to be this
chaotic, it should be done and tested out of tree until it can
stabilize.

I do not like having to continuously retest and review the x86 branch
because the paravirt-ops are constantly in flux and the 32-bit code
keeps breaking.

We won't be doing 64-bit paravirt-ops for exactly this reason - is there
a serious justification from the performance angle on modern 64-bit
hardware?  If not, why justify the complexity and hackery to Linux?

Zach

--
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/