linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xen: eliminate scalability issues from initial mapping setup

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: <54088183.7020608@citrix.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:13:07 +0100
From:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
CC:	<xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>, <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	<konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, Juergen Gross <JGross@...e.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xen: eliminate scalability issues from
 initial mapping setup

On 04/09/14 15:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 04.09.14 at 15:02, <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com> wrote:
>> On 04/09/14 13:59, David Vrabel wrote:
>>> On 04/09/14 13:38, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> Direct Xen to place the initial P->M table outside of the initial
>>>> mapping, as otherwise the 1G (implementation) / 2G (theoretical)
>>>> restriction on the size of the initial mapping limits the amount
>>>> of memory a domain can be handed initially.
>>> The three level p2m limits memory to 512 GiB on x86-64 but this patch
>>> doesn't seem to address this limit and thus seems a bit useless to me.
>>
>> Any increase of the p2m beyond 3 levels will need to come with
>> substantial libxc changes first.  3 level p2ms are hard coded throughout
>> all the PV build and migrate code.
> 
> No, there no such dependency - the kernel could use 4 levels at
> any time (sacrificing being able to get migrated), making sure it
> only exposes the 3 levels hanging off the fourth level (or not
> exposing this information at all) to external entities making this
> wrong assumption.

I don't think we want a kernel that may or may not be saved or migrated
based on how much memory it has.

Nor do we want a kernel that has even more differences between dom0 and
domU.

David
--
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/