linux-kernel - Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api

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:	Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:52:07 -0600
From:	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
To:	Eric Northup <digitaleric@...gle.com>
CC:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api

On 02/03/2012 12:07 PM, Eric Northup wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Avi Kivity<avi@...hat.com>  wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> Moving to syscalls avoids these problems, but introduces new ones:
>>
>> - adding new syscalls is generally frowned upon, and kvm will need several
>> - syscalls into modules are harder and rarer than into core kernel code
>> - will need to add a vcpu pointer to task_struct, and a kvm pointer to
>> mm_struct
> - Lost a good place to put access control (permissions on /dev/kvm)
> for which user-mode processes can use KVM.
>
> How would the ability to use sys_kvm_* be regulated?

Why should it be regulated?

It's not a finite or privileged resource.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>

--
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/