linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 04/12] xen/hvmlite: Bootstrap HVMlite 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAB=NE6Wt0zZsMWAMZ3iJkW8EuC6zKzO2hM6oTf4s5f=dBZPkKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:45:07 -0800
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
To:	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc:	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 04/12] xen/hvmlite: Bootstrap HVMlite guest

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Andrew Cooper
<andrew.cooper3@...rix.com> wrote:
> I would have though the correct way to do direct Linux support would be
> to have a very small init stub which constructs an appropriate zero
> page, and lets the native entry point get on with things.

As hpa noted recently in another thread [0] that is precisely what
hardware_subarch and hardware_subarch_data was meant to be used for,
and its what I'm alluding to.

The only thing though is that as far as we're concerned on x86 we had
expected use of hardware_subarch and hardware_subarch_data only for
PV, and not for HVM. This seems to be HVM related, but I think this is
just a rebranding of PVH to HVMLite, right, so I think the use case of
hardware_subarch and hardware_subarch_data are still welcomed as
expected in the original design.

[0] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/56A130B5.8060701@zytor.com

 Luis