linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [RFC 0/5] parker: PARtitioned KERnel

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CABgc4wSRMW1UdtqGDEfnD4UTuLGqi3nVHZsJB_hUouAhLvidyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 21:13:53 +0100
From: Fam Zheng <fam@...hon.net>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Fam Zheng <fam.zheng@...edance.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, linyongting@...edance.com, songmuchun@...edance.com, 
	satish.kumar@...edance.com, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, yuanzhu@...edance.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, 
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org, liangma@...edance.com, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	guojinhui.liam@...edance.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [RFC 0/5] parker: PARtitioned KERnel

On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 9:05 PM Fam Zheng <fam@...hon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 7:32 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/24/25 09:21, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> ...
>> > The model and motivation here is not to split the domain and give
>> > different shares to different sysadmins, it's intended for one kernel
>> > to partition itself. I agree we shouldn't have different kernels here:
>> > one old, one new, one Linux, one Windows... All partitions should run
>> > a verified parker-aware kernel. Actually, it may be a good idea to
>> > force the same buildid in kexec between the boot kernel and secondary
>> > ones.
>> Uhhh.... From the cover letter:
>>
>> > Another possible use case is for different kernel instances to have
>> > different performance tunings, CONFIG_ options, FDO/PGO according to
>> > the workload.
>>
>> Wouldn't the buildid change with CONIFG_ options and FDO/PGO?
>>
>
>
Discussing goals and non-goals is what we were looking for for this
RFC, and these were just stretchy ideas that we can decide not to go
for.

Thanks for looking at this!

Forgot to turn off email html mode in my previous message..


(outside working hours now so replying from personal email)
Thanks,
Fam