linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introducing Linux root partition support for Microsoft Hypervisor

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:   Tue, 02 Feb 2021 10:40:43 +0000
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
        "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>,
        kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux on Hyper-V List <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>,
        Nuno Das Neves <nunodasneves@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        sameo@...ux.intel.com, robert.bradford@...el.com,
        sebastien.boeuf@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introducing Linux root partition support for
 Microsoft Hypervisor

On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 16:42 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 04:25:03PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> > On 03.12.20 00:22, Wei Liu wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > > I don't follow. Do you mean reusing /dev/kvm but with a different set of
> > > APIs underneath? I don't think that will work.
> > 
> > My idea was using the same uapi for both hypervisors, so that we can use
> > the same userlands for both.
> > 
> > Are the semantis so different that we can't provide the same API ?
> 
> We can provide some similar APIs for ease of porting, but can't provide
> 1:1 mappings. By definition KVM and MSHV are two different things. There
> is no goal to make one ABI / API compatible with the other.

I'm not sure I understand.

KVM is the Linux userspace API for virtualisation. It is designed to be
versatile enough that it can support multiple implementations across
multiple architectures, including both AMD SVM and Intel VMX on x86.

Are you saying that KVM has *failed* to be versatile enough that this
can be "just another implementation"? What are the problems? Is it
unfixable? 

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5174 bytes)