linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project

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:	Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:38:21 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	oerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>, ziteng.huang@...el.com,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single
 project

On 03/18/2010 04:09 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity<avi@...hat.com>  wrote:
>
>    
>>> That is not what i said. I said they are closely related, and where
>>> technologies are closely related, project proximity turns into project
>>> unification at a certain stage.
>>>        
>> I really don't see how.  So what if both qemu and kvm implement an i8254?
>> They can't share any code since the internal APIs are so different. [...]
>>      
> I wouldnt jump to assumptions there. perf shares some facilities with the
> kernel on the source code level - they can be built both in the kernel and in
> user-space.
>
> But my main thought wasnt even to actually share the implementation - but to
> actually synchronize when a piece of device emulation moves into the kernel.
> It is arguably bad for performance in most cases when Qemu handles a given
> device - so all the common devices should be kernel accelerated.
>
> The version and testing matrix would be simplified significantly as well: as
> kernel and qemu goes hand in hand, they are always on the same version.
>    

So, you propose to allow running tools/kvm/ only on the kernel it was 
shipped with?

Otherwise the testing matrix isn't simplified.

>> [...] Even worse for the x86 emulator as qemu and kvm are fundamentally
>> different.
>>      
> So is it your argument that the difference and the duplication in x86
> instruction emulation is a good thing?

Of course it isn't a good thing, but it is unavoidable.  Qemu compiles 
code just-in-time to avoid interpretation overhead, while kvm emulates 
one instruction at a time.  No caching is possible, especially with 
ept/npt, since the guest is free to manipulate memory with no 
notification to the host.  Qemu also supports the full instruction set 
while kvm only implements what is necessary.  Qemu is a 
multi-source/multi-target translator while kvm's emulator is x86 specific.

> You said it some time ago that
> the kvm x86 emulator was very messy and you wish it was cleaner.
>    

It's still messy but is being cleaned up.

> While qemu's is indeed rather different (it's partly a translator/JIT), i'm
> sure the decoder logic could be shared - and qemu has a slow-path
> full-emulation fallback in any case, which is similar to what in-kernel
> emulator does (IIRC ...).
>
> That might have changed meanwhile.
>    

IIUC it only ever translates.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/