linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] xen: Remove Xen PVH/PVHVM dependency on PCI

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: <CAKf6xps+mAFdfk8uBw=aMsAFNYmt4ETPkB8dwT3sTv-qPbVENw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:59:40 -0400
From:   Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@...il.com>
To:     Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xen: Remove Xen PVH/PVHVM dependency on PCI

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 4:10 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On 14.10.2020 19:53, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > @@ -76,7 +80,9 @@ config XEN_DEBUG_FS
> >         Enabling this option may incur a significant performance overhead.
> >
> >  config XEN_PVH
> > -     bool "Support for running as a Xen PVH guest"
> > +     bool "Xen PVH guest support"
>
> Tangential question: Is "guest" here still appropriate, i.e.
> isn't this option also controlling whether the kernel can be
> used in a PVH Dom0?

Would you like something more generic like "Xen PVH support" and
"Support for running in Xen PVH mode"?

> >       def_bool n
>
> And is this default still appropriate?

We probably want to flip it on, yes.  PVH is the future, isn't it?

Regards,
Jason