[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081020075333.GC798@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:53:33 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, maluta_tiago@...oo.com.br,
lguest@...abs.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Lguest] lguest: unhandled trap
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> i think Xen can withstand DMI scanning just fine.
>>
>> without having seen any background, my general feeling is that lguest
>> should either do what Xen does and reserve the classic BIOS ranges
>> that we probe - or we should make DMI scanning more robust by making
>> sure real RAM ranges are never probed. (only ranges that the BIOS
>> itself marks as reserved in the e820 map)
>
> We considered doing that, but decided that there was so many other
> pieces of code around the place that assume that the ISA area is
> special, that just reserving it was the best course of action.
yeah - for _any_ virtual machine environment it's beneficial to look as
much like a normal PC as possible, because normal PCs is where the code
gets tested most.
Nevertheless if this is the only current roadblock for lguest then i
wouldnt find it objectionable to make DMI scanning more robust that way
- the two are complimentary. [ With an initial transitionary period of
generating printks and WARN()s when we try to scan general RAM areas. ]
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists