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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 19:29:53 -0300 From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...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>, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>, Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 rebased] kvm: notify host when the guest is panicked On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 03:00:22PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 09:03:12PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 04:54:25PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h > > > > > index 06fdbd9..c15ef33 100644 > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h > > > > > @@ -96,5 +96,7 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_pv_apf_data { > > > > > #define KVM_PV_EOI_ENABLED KVM_PV_EOI_MASK > > > > > #define KVM_PV_EOI_DISABLED 0x0 > > > > > > > > > > +#define KVM_PV_EVENT_PORT (0x505UL) > > > > > + > > > > > > > > No need for the ioport to be hard coded. What are the options to > > > > communicate an address to the guest? An MSR, via ACPI? > > > > > > I'm not quite understanding here. By 'address', you mean an ioport? > > > how to communicate an address? (I have little knowledge about ACPI) > > > > Yes, the ioport. The address of the ioport should not be fixed (for > > example future emulated board could use that fixed ioport address, > > 0x505UL). > > > > One option is to pass the address via an MSR. Yes, that is probably the > > best option because there is no dependency on ACPI. > > > Why dependency on ACPI is problematic? ACPI is the standard way on x86 > to enumerate platform devices. Passing it through MSR makes this panic > device CPU interface which it is not. And since relying on #GP to detect > valid MSRs is not good interface we will have to guard it by cpuid bit. > > -- > Gleb. KVM guest <-> KVM host interface is not dependent on ACPI, so far. Say, its possible to use a Linux guest without ACPI and have KVM paravirt fully functional. -- 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