linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Native Linux KVM tool for 3.1

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110725101607.GI28787@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:16:07 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, avi@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, gorcunov@...il.com, levinsasha928@...il.com,
	asias.hejun@...il.com, prasadjoshi124@...il.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Native Linux KVM tool for 3.1


* Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de> wrote:

> > In fact one of the problems i see with Qemu is that Qemu had to 
> > make many compromises to support Windows and other weird 
> > platforms that i'm (and i'd claim most other Linux kernel 
> > developers) are personally not interested in.
> 
> It's what makes it so powerful. [...]

To me and Pekka that is what made Qemu unhackable.

Really, i'm not sure why you are arguing here. We are not trying to 
merge tools/qemu/ upstream. We are trying to merge a Linux-only 
utility that lives in the kernel tree today and which we are actively 
using and developing.

> [...] Adding a new architecture for KVM for example is as easy as 
> only implementing the CPU. All device emulation is already there. 
> If you want something Linux only, lguest would've been enough, no?

That's a rather bizarre argument, we were pretty happy with the 
design of the KVM host side, what we wanted to improve was user-space 
tooling.

With lguest we'd have to write a new host implementation in essence 
...

> > [...]
> >
> > tools/kvm/ does less and in my experience does it better - is 
> > that such a surprising thing?
>
> [...] 
> 
> > So it was a no brainer for me to pull it into -tip.
> 
> The thing I don't agree with is that it should live in the kernel 
> tree.

FYI, tools/kvm/ *already* lives in the kernel tree - that is how it's 
developed and used and it also shares code with the kernel.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/