linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 4/4] x86: Add hypercall for acrn

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <400e6c10-10c1-df8a-dcad-4a59c9d6ff9c@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Apr 2019 16:17:51 +0800
From:   "Zhao, Yakui" <yakui.zhao@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        Jason Chen CJ <jason.cj.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 4/4] x86: Add hypercall for acrn_guest



On 2019年04月08日 23:10, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 04:12:11PM +0800, Zhao Yakui wrote:
>> When acrn_hypervisor is detected, the hypercall is needed so that the
>> acrn guest can query/config some settings. For example: it can be used
>> to query the resources in hypervisor and manage the CPU/memory/device/
>> interrupt for Guest system.
> 
> Good example.
> 
> What is "Guest system" and why is capitalized? Do you mean "the guest
> operating system" or simply "the guest"?

it means the "guest operating system".
It will be changed to "guest operating system".

> 
>> So the hypercall is added so that the kernel can communicate with the
> 
> "So add the hypercall so that..."
> 
>> low-level acrn-hypervisor.
> 
> Is it acrn_hypervisor or acrn-hypervisor or the ACRN hypervisor or ...?
> 
> Unify the naming pls.

Sure. They will be unified to "ACRN hypervisor" in next version.

> 
>> On x86 it is implemented by using vmacll when
> 
> During last review Thomas said:
> 
> "is implemented with the VMCALL instruction"
> 
> You still have it wrong. Which makes me think you haven't even gone over
> *all* review comments as this is the second missed review comment in a
> 4-patches set.
> 
> So I'm going to stop reviewing here and won't look at your patches until
> you incorporate *all* review comments from all people.
>