linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC

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: <C66250DB.DC85%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Date:	Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:39:55 +0100
From:	Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@...citrix.com>
To:	"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:	Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just
 because there's no local APIC

On 20/06/2009 00:44, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com> wrote:

>> I assume that putting AML into Xen has been considered, but I don't
>> anything about those deliberations.  Keir? Jun?
>> 
> 
> Yes, it was one of the options years ago. We did not do that because Linux and
> Solaris (as dom0) already had the AML interpreter and it's overkill and
> redundant to have such a large component in the Xen hypervisor. Since the
> hypervisor does most of the power management (i.e. P, C, S-state, etc.)
> getting the info from dom0 today, we might want to reconsider the option.

Yes, we could reconsider. However is there any stuff that dom0 remains
responsible for (e.g., PCI management, and therefore PCI hotplug) where it
would continue to need to be OSPM, interpreting certain AML objects? In
general how safe would it be to have two layered entities both playing at
being OSPM?

 -- Keir


--
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/