linux-kernel - Re: [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: <4EB6BAED.2030400@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 06 Nov 2011 18:50:53 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
CC:	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org list" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	qemu-devel Developers <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels

On 11/06/2011 06:35 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >> The difference here is that although I feel Alex's script is a
> >> pointless project, I'm in no way opposed to merging it in the tree if
> >> people use it and it solves their problem. Some people seem to be
> >> violently opposed to merging the KVM tool and I'm having difficult
> >> time understanding why that is.
> >
> > One of the reasons is that if it is merge, anyone with a #include
> > <linux/foo.h> will line up for the next merge window, wanting in.  The
> > other is that anything in the Linux source tree might gain an unfair
> > advantage over out-of-tree projects (at least that's how I read Jan's
> > comment).
>
> Well, having gone through the process of getting something included so
> far, I'm not at all worried that there's going to be a huge queue of
> "#include <linux/foo.h>" projects if we get in...
>
> What kind of unfair advantage are you referring to? I've specifically
> said that the only way for KVM tool to become a reference
> implementation would be that the KVM maintainers take the tool through
> their tree. As that's not going to happen, I don't see what the
> problem would be.

I'm not personally worried about it either (though in fact a *minimal*
reference implementation might not be a bad idea).  There's the risk of
getting informed in-depth press reviews ("Linux KVM Takes A Step Back
>From Running Windows Guests"), or of unfairly drawing developers away
from competing projects.

-- 
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/