[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F3BB59D.2020505@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:39:41 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...abs.org>
CC: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...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 02/07/2012 08:12 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > I would really love to have this, but the problem is that we'd need a
> > general purpose bytecode VM with binding to some kernel APIs. The
> > bytecode VM, if made general enough to host more complicated devices,
> > would likely be much larger than the actual code we have in the kernel now.
>
> We have the ability to upload bytecode into the kernel already. It's in
> a great bytecode interpreted by the CPU itself.
Unfortunately it's inflexible (has to come with the kernel) and open to
security vulnerabilities.
> If every user were emulating different machines, LPF this would make
> sense. Are they?
They aren't.
> Or should we write those helpers once, in C, and
> provide that for them.
There are many of them: PIT/PIC/IOAPIC/MSIX tables/HPET/kvmclock/Hyper-V
stuff/vhost-net/DMA remapping/IO remapping (just for x86), and some of
them are quite complicated. However implementing them in bytecode
amounts to exposing a stable kernel ABI, since they use such a vast
range of kernel services.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists