linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33

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: <200912231508.25355.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:08:25 +0100
From:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33

On Wednesday 23 December 2009 02:31:11 pm Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/23/2009 03:07 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >
> >> That is a very different situation from the AlacrityVM patches, which:
> >>
> >>   - Are a pure software concept and any compatibility mismatch is
> >>     self-inflicted. The patches are in fact breaking the ABI to KVM
> >>     intentionally (for better or worse).
> >>      
> > Care to explain the 'breakage' and why KVM is more special in this regard
> > than other parts of the kernel (where we don't keep any such requirements)?
> >    
> 
> The device model is exposed to the guest.  If you change it, the guest 
> breaks.

Huh?  Shouldn't non-vbus aware guests continue to work just fine?

> > I certainly missed the time when KVM became officially part of core ABI..
> >    
> 
> It's more akin to the hardware interface.  We don't change the hardware 
> underneath the guest.

As far as my limited understanding of things go vbus is completely opt-in
so it is like adding new real hardware to host.  Where is the problem?

--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
--
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/