linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 0/8] pv event interface between host and guest

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <513491B6.6050706@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Mar 2013 13:21:10 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
CC:	Hu Tao <hutao@...fujitsu.com>, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
	Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@...il.com>,
	Eric Blake <eblake@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ibm.com>,
	Markus Armbruster <armbru@...hat.com>,
	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
	Juan Quintela <quintela@...hat.com>,
	Orit Wasserman <owasserm@...hat.com>,
	Kevin Wolf <kwolf@...hat.com>,
	Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 0/8] pv event interface between host and guest

Il 04/03/2013 12:52, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> > Same here, you can remove the panic event port and add debugcon at
> > 0x505.  That's the problematic case.  But if the user goes to that
> > length, I think we can honestly say we don't care.
>
> IMO there is a big difference between well know serial ISA ports and
> PIO ports we allocate for our devices. Later have to be discoverable
> without resorting to probing. On CPU level we do the same with CPUID
> bits instead of relaying on MSRs #GP. On KVM API level we do the same
> with capabilities instead of relying on ioctls returning errors. This
> is not different.

Ok, I see your point now.  Yes, this is a good reason why patching is
better in the long run.

Paolo
--
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/