linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 00/55] Nested Virtualization on KVM/ARM

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: <CAHyh4xg23zgqzJa9yUgXdjZN5v45fBLjDFJok_DPSWUo9UaewQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:18:21 -0500
From:   Jintack Lim <jintack@...columbia.edu>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, rkrcmar@...hat.com,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        will.deacon@....com, vladimir.murzin@....com,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        mark.rutland@....com, james.morse@....com,
        lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, kevin.brodsky@....com,
        wcohen@...hat.com, shankerd@...eaurora.org, geoff@...radead.org,
        andre.przywara@....com, eric.auger@...hat.com,
        anna-maria@...utronix.de, Shih-Wei Li <shihwei@...columbia.edu>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        KVM General <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/55] Nested Virtualization on KVM/ARM

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:05 AM, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> Even though this work is not complete (see limitations below), I'd
>> appreciate
>> early feedback on this RFC. Specifically, I'm interested in:
>> - Is it better to have a kernel config or to make it configurable at
>> runtime?
>
>
> x86 and s390x have a kernel module parameter (nested) that can only be
> changed when loading the module and should default to false. So the
> admin explicitly has to enable it. Maybe going the same path makes
> sense.

I think that makes sense. Thanks!

>
> --
>
> David
>