linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/6] xen/hybrid: Enable grant table and xenbus

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: <201002030046.41799.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Feb 2010 00:46:41 +0800
From:	Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
	Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@...citrix.com>,
	"xen-devel" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/6] xen/hybrid: Enable grant table and xenbus

On Wednesday 03 February 2010 00:24:04 Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:24 +0000, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > I am not sure if I understand you right, but I think the issue is,
> > there is no PVonHVM drivers in Linux upstream. The drivers are
> > currently maintained by OSVs, and the one in Xen upstream code only
> > support 2.6.18. So I didn't take them into consideration at the time.
> 
> True, but this is something which should be taken care of by the core
> Xen-aware code not something which should be pushed down into each
> driver.
> 
> Someone who wants to add PVonHVM functionality shouldn't have to go and
> remove a bunch of conditionals from each driver (or worse add
> alternative clauses to each check!).
> 
> > I think the "xen_evtchn_enable()" looks much better. Would replace
> > these ugly lines in the next version.
> 
> I think it would be cleaner to encapsulate this in the evtchn code
> rather than leaking platform knowledge into each driver. IOW the evtchn
> functions should return failure if event channels are not enabled and
> the driver should cope with this gracefully.

Agree. That what I suppose to do. What the drivers should only know is, if 
event channel is enabled. 

> Or perhaps at the xenbus driver level we should be deciding whether or
> not we have enough paravirtualisation to be worth probing the drivers at
> all?

I think current scheme is direct enough for now. We can improve it later.

-- 
regards
Yang, Sheng
--
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/