linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] Add "handle page fault" PV helper.

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: <4B541D08.9040802@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:34:16 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avi@...hat.com,
	mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, riel@...hat.com,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] Add "handle page fault" PV helper.

On 01/17/2010 06:44 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:31:07PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 16:12 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> Allow paravirtualized guest to do special handling for some page faults.
>>>
>>> The patch adds one 'if' to do_page_fault() function. The call is patched
>>> out when running on physical HW. I ran kernbech on the kernel with and
>>> without that additional 'if' and result were rawly the same:
>>
>> So why not program a different handler address for the #PF/#GP faults
>> and avoid the if all together?
> I would gladly use fault vector reserved by x86 architecture, but I am
> not sure Intel will be happy about it.
>

That's what it's there for... see Peter Z.'s response.

	-hpa
--
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/