Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750829AbXAEWuQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:50:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750833AbXAEWuP (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:50:15 -0500 Received: from mailout1.vmware.com ([65.113.40.130]:53419 "EHLO mailout1.vmware.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750829AbXAEWuO (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:50:14 -0500 Message-ID: <459ED624.1080100@vmware.com> Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:50:12 -0800 From: Zachary Amsden User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061206) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: kvm-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] KVM paravirtualization for Linux References: <20070105215223.GA5361@elte.hu> <459ECDF7.9040309@vmware.com> <20070105223009.GA15369@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20070105223009.GA15369@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2502 Lines: 69 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Zachary Amsden wrote: > > >> What you really want is more like >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_READABLE_GPL(paravirt_ops); >> > > yep. Not a big issue - what is important is to put the paravirt ops into > the read-only section so that it's somewhat harder for rootkits to > modify. (Also, it needs to be made clear that this is fundamental, > lowlevel system functionality written by people under the GPLv2, so that > if you utilize it beyond its original purpose, using its internals, you > likely create a work derived from the kernel. Something simple as irq > disabling probably doesnt qualify, and that we exported to modules for a > long time, but lots of other details do. So the existence of > paravirt_ops isnt a free-for all.) > I agree completely. It would be nice to have a way to make certain kernel structures available, but non-mutable to non-GPL modules. >> But I'm not sure that is technically feasible yet. >> >> The kvm code should probably go in kvm.c instead of paravirt.c. >> > > no. This is fundamental architecture boot code, not module code. kvm.c > should eventually go into kernel/ and arch/*/kernel, not the other way > around. > What I meant was kvm.c in arch/i386/kernel - as symmetric to the other paravirt-ops modules, which live in arch/i386/kernel/vmi.c / lhype.c, etc. Either that, or we should move them to be symmetric, but I don't think paravirt.c is the proper place for kvm specific code. > >> Index: linux/drivers/serial/8250.c >> =================================================================== >> --- linux.orig/drivers/serial/8250.c >> +++ linux/drivers/serial/8250.c >> @@ -1371,7 +1371,7 @@ static irqreturn_t serial8250_interrupt( >> >> l = l->next; >> >> - if (l == i->head && pass_counter++ > PASS_LIMIT) { >> + if (!kvm_paravirt >> >> Is this a bug that might happen under other virtualizations as well, >> not just kvm? Perhaps it deserves a disable feature instead of a kvm >> specific check. >> > > yes - this limit is easily triggered via the KVM/Qemu virtual serial > drivers. You can think of "kvm_paravirt" as "Linux paravirt", it's just > a flag. > Can't you just test paravirt_enabled() in that case? Zach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/