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]

Date:	Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:21:47 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@...citrix.com>
Cc:	"Nakajima\, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	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

Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@...citrix.com> writes:

> 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?

Short of running the oddball acpi based drivers.  I'm not familiar with
any acpi in the pci management.

Eric

--
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/