linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 2/7] xen/arm: introduce HYPERVISOR_platform

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: <1447666977.15629.9.camel@citrix.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:42:57 +0000
From:	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
To:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Julien Grall <julien.grall@...rix.com>
CC:	<xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 2/7] xen/arm: introduce
 HYPERVISOR_platform_op on arm and arm64

On Fri, 2015-11-13 at 18:10 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> 
> I agree with your point (I thought about it myself) but the current
> assembly scheme for hypercalls doesn't work well with that. I would have
> to introduce, and maintain going forward, two special hypercall
> implementations in assembly, one for arm and another for arm64, just to
> set interface_version. I don't think it is worth it; I prefer to have to
> maintain the explicit interface_version setting at the call sites (that
> today is just one).

You could give the bare assembly stub a different name (append _core or
_raw or something) and make HYPERVISOR_platform_op a C wrapper for it which
DTRT.

Ian.
--
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/