linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: move vmware to hypervisor

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: <1238000840.2500.49.camel@ht.satnam>
Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:37:20 +0530
From:	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>
To:	akataria@...are.com
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: move vmware to hypervisor

On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 09:52 -0700, Alok Kataria wrote:
> > 
> > vmware can be considered a CPU here, so i think making the disabling 
> > also depend on PROCESSOR_SELECT.
> 
> Ingo, this code is not just to be used by VMware, the reason we did this
> generically was so that a guest could run unaltered on *any* fully
> virtualized hypervisor.
> And give that this code is just a boot setup thing, the only thing this
> patch saves over here is not running the detection code on native
> systems. All the rest of the code is guarded by the
> "boot_cpu_data.x86_hyper_vendor" checks anyways.  
> 
> I don't really see the point of adding one more config option just for
> this. 
> 

Can you please explain what is the point of adding this support all the
time if this is useless for 99.9% of cases. IMHO, it should be optional.

--
JSR





--
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/