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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <1242748597.22654.44.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 May 2009 16:56:37 +0100
From:	Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>
To:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, jeremy@...p.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
	gregkh@...e.de, okir@...e.de
Subject: Re: Where do we stand with the Xen patches?

On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 00:30 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> 
> We need these hooks but as I wrote above, they are
> architecture-specific and we should handle them with the architecture
> abstraction (as we handle similar problems) however we can't due to
> dom0 support.

I don't understand this. What exactly about the dom0 support patch
prevents future abstraction here?

The dom0 hooks would simply move into the per-arch abstractions as
appropriate, wouldn't they?

Ian.
-- 
Ian Campbell
Current Noise: Mondo Generator - Simple Exploding Man

"We are on the verge: Today our program proved Fermat's next-to-last theorem."
		-- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982

--
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/