linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] drivers: platform: goldfish: goldfish_address

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: <20190129093743.GA20334@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:37:43 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Roman Kiryanov <rkir@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] drivers: platform: goldfish:
 goldfish_address_space: add a driver

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:32:12AM -0800, Roman Kiryanov wrote:
> > How does QEMU do this today?  There isn't a virtio or some other virtual
> > memory device that allows memory regions to be shared?  I can't believe
> > that there isn't one yet.  If not, then this should be some kind of
> > "generic" QEMU memory device, not a "goldfish" specific one, right?
> 
> I also thought this should not be something unique to us. So I asked
> in our internal mailing list, I heard nothing back.

As we have no idea who is on your internal mailing list, that's really
not a good representation :)

> > Please work with the QEMU developers on this, I need their ack before I
> > can take something like this.
> 
> This is a good point. I asked there (nothing since 1/24):
> 
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-discuss/2019-01/msg00055.html

less than a week is short :)

> When we were working on our device side, we had to change some QEMU
> code and later noticed that HAXM also requires some fixes (we had
> meetings with Intel). I suppose QEMU does not have this feature yet.
> 
> Could you please tell if we can proceed with upstreaming as is?

I told you what the requirements would be to get this merged in the
previous email, that has not changed.

thanks,

greg k-h