linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 8/9] x86/rtc: replace paravirt

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]

Date:	Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:27:21 +0000
From:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, <bp@...en8.de>
CC:	<rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, <x86@...nel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <luto@...capital.net>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>, <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	<boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 8/9] x86/rtc: replace paravirt_enabled() check
 with subarch check

On 19/02/16 13:08, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> The current check is a super long winded way of asking if this
> is on lguest. The flags is used for legacy features, this is
> likely inspired by the ACPI IA-PC boot architecture flags, where
> as for RTC it annotates No CMOS real-time clock present. I don't
> expect we will be implementing more legacy features, its simply
> pointless so just remove this legacy flag feature thing as well.

No.  This check is needed for Xen PV domU guests and without it PV
guests don't get a console (as I think the history of the change that
introduced this makes clear).

I think this trend towards a coarse-grained subarch instead of a set of
feature bits is the wrong direction.

David