linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] xen/hvmlite: Extend APIC operations for HVMlite guests

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: <56B340B4.3050406@citrix.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Feb 2016 13:14:44 +0100
From:	Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
To:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	<konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC:	<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <mcgrof@...e.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] xen/hvmlite: Extend APIC operations
 for HVMlite guests

El 4/2/16 a les 11:04, David Vrabel ha escrit:
> On 01/02/16 15:38, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> HVMlite guests need to be viewed as having APIC, otherwise smpboot code,
>> for example, will complain.
> 
> I think we should consider always giving HVMlite guests an emulated
> APIC.  I think this eliminates one of the biggest differences between
> HVMlite and native/KVM guests and will reduce the risk of future
> breakage in this area.

Right, I'm not opposed to that, but I think we should keep the hypercall
interface in order to bring up vCPUs. IMHO it's useful for unikernels
for example (do those support SMP?), and in general allows for
easier/faster CPU-bringup as compared to bare metal.

Then if we indeed decide to provide and emulated lapic, should we also
at least provide the ACPI MADT table in order to enumerate them?

Roger.