Subject: Re: [patch] paravirt: isolate module ops
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xensource.com>,
       Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
       Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
In-Reply-To: <45A00CB0.2020509@vmware.com>
References: <20070106000715.GA6688@elte.hu> <459EEDEB.8090800@vmware.com>
	 <1168064710.20372.28.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20070106070807.GA11232@elte.hu>
	 <1168105353.20372.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <45A00CB0.2020509@vmware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 12:09:56 +1100
Message-Id: <1168132196.20372.45.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 905
Lines: 28

On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 12:55 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> >
> > +int paravirt_write_msr(unsigned int msr, u64 val);
> 
> If binary modules using debug registers makes us nervous, the 
> reprogramming MSRs is also similarly bad.

Yes, but this is simply from experience.  Several modules wrote msrs
(you can take out the EXPORT_SYMBOL and find them quite quickly).

> > +void raw_safe_halt(void);
> > +void halt(void);
> 
> These shouldn't be done by modules, ever.  Only the scheduler should 
> decide to halt.

Several modules implement alternate halt loops.  I guess being in a
module for specific CPUs makes sense...

Cheers!
Rusty.

-
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/