linux-kernel - Re: Where do we stand with the Xen patches?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 17 May 2009 12:33:24 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	david@...g.hm
Cc:	devzero@....de, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Where do we stand with the Xen patches?

On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
david@...g.hm wrote:

> On Sun, 17 May 2009, devzero@....de wrote:
> > maybe this is iust a stupid comment (please forgive, i?m no
> > advanced kernel hacker), but can?t the code inserted by the patches
> > and which changes the fastpath just #IFDEF`ed at the critical
> > offsets ?  (as building a dom0 kernel is just another build target,
> > isn`t it ?)
> 
> no, if dom0 is going to be widely deployed, it will be because the
> distros turn on dom0 support by default. as a result any penalties
> due to xen support will be felt by all users of those distros (even
> if they don't use xen)
> 

at minimum we need to split CONFIG_PARAVIRT up into 
"want to be nice to hypervisors" and "I want to be Xen Dom0";
they look to largely not overlap.... so lets not make the costs overlap
either.


-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/