linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ia64: remove paravirt code

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: <CA+8MBb+R-et1VNrqsV6USUphwMfhiMBbLBVrrkQcma4b=wsLbA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:11:56 -0700
From:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
Cc:	"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	pbonzini@...hat.com, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, akataria@...are.com,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ia64: remove paravirt code

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<mcgrof@...not-panic.com> wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
>
> All the ia64 pvops code is now dead code since both
> xen and kvm support have been ripped out [0] [1]. Just
> that no one had troubled to rip this stuff out. The only
> useful remaining pieces were the old pvops docs but that
> was recently also generalized and moved out from ia64 [2].
>
> This has been run time tested on an ia64 Madison system.
>
> [0] 003f7de625890 "KVM: ia64: remove" since v3.19-rc1
> [1] d52eefb47d4eb "ia64/xen: Remove Xen support for ia64" since v3.14-rc1
> [2] "virtual: Documentation: simplify and generalize paravirt_ops.txt"
>
> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...e.com>
> ---
> I've build and run time tested this against linux-next tag next-20150529.
> The build will fail if you've enabled the LKDTM (Linux Kernel Dump Test
> Tool Module) enabled on SLE11 ia64 builds, a fix for which I've just
> posted [3].
>
> [3] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=143327018731361&w=2


So this builds cleanly on all my test configurations, and boots on
the one machine that I tried it on - good job.

But I'm wondering how much of this was auto-generated (and
so perhaps free from typos) and how much was done by hand?

It isn't a full revert of the patch series that added paravirt ... you
simplified macros like:
 #define MOV_TO_KR(kr, reg, clob0, clob1)       \
-       mov IA64_KR(kr) = reg                   \
-       CLOBBER(clob0)                          \
-       CLOBBER(clob1)
+       mov IA64_KR(kr) = reg

but didn't remove them completely.

So what can I do to validate this 4000+ line patch?  Can I compare
disassembled ".o" files pre/post patch somehow to be sure this doesn't
have some small typo errors somewhere?

-Tony
--
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/