linux-kernel - Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels

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: <20111106231953.GD4500@thunk.org>
Date:	Sun, 6 Nov 2011 18:19:53 -0500
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc:	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org list" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	qemu-devel Developers <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@...il.com>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to
 test kernels

On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:58:20PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Ted, I'm confused. Making backwards incompatible ABI changes has never
> > been on the table. Why are you bringing it up?
> 
> And btw, KVM tool is not a random userspace project - it was designed
> to live in tools/kvm from the beginning. I've explained the technical
> rationale for sharing kernel code here:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/4/150
> 
> Please also see Ingo's original rant that started the project:
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/962051/focus=962620

Because I don't buy any of these arguments.  We have the same kernel
developers working on xfs and xfsprogs, ext4 and e2fsprogs, btrfs and
btrfsprogs, and we don't have those userspace projects in the kernel
source tree.

The only excuse I can see is a hope to make random changes to the
kernel and userspace tools without having to worry about compatibility
problems, which is an argument I've seen with perf (that you have to
use the same version of perf as the kernel version, which to me is bad
software engineering).  And that's why I pointed out that you can't do
that with KVM, since we have out-of-tree userspace users, namely
qemu-kvm.

The rest of the arguments are arguments for a new effort, which is
fine --- but not an excuse for putting in the kernel source tree.

     	     	    	       	       - Ted
--
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/