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  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:   Wed, 15 Jul 2020 17:18:08 -0400
From:   Boris Ostrovsky <>
To:     Anchal Agarwal <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] xen/manage: keep track of the on-going suspend

On 7/15/20 4:49 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:52:01AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
>> On 7/2/20 2:21 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
>>> +
>>> +bool xen_is_xen_suspend(void)
>> Weren't you going to call this pv suspend? (And also --- is this suspend
>> or hibernation? Your commit messages and cover letter talk about fixing
>> hibernation).
> This is for hibernation is for pvhvm/hvm/pv-on-hvm guests as you may call it.
> The method is just there to check if "xen suspend" is in progress.
> I do not see "xen_suspend" differentiating between pv or hvm
> domain until later in the code hence, I abstracted it to xen_is_xen_suspend.

I meant "pv suspend" in the sense that this is paravirtual suspend, not
suspend for paravirtual guests. Just like pv drivers are for both pv and
hvm guests.

And then --- should it be pv suspend or pv hibernation?

>>> +{
>>> +     return suspend_mode == XEN_SUSPEND;
>>> +}
>>> +
>> +static int xen_setup_pm_notifier(void)
>> +{
>> +     if (!xen_hvm_domain())
>> +             return -ENODEV;
>> I forgot --- what did we decide about non-x86 (i.e. ARM)?
> It would be great to support that however, its  out of
> scope for this patch set.
> I’ll be happy to discuss it separately.

I wasn't implying that this *should* work on ARM but rather whether this
will break ARM somehow (because xen_hvm_domain() is true there).

>> And PVH dom0.
> That's another good use case to make it work with however, I still
> think that should be tested/worked upon separately as the feature itself
> (PVH Dom0) is very new.

Same question here --- will this break PVH dom0?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists