Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752621AbYJTHyM (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:54:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751464AbYJTHx5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:53:57 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:56701 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751255AbYJTHx5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:53:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:53:33 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Rusty Russell , maluta_tiago@yahoo.com.br, lguest@ozlabs.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [Lguest] lguest: unhandled trap Message-ID: <20081020075333.GC798@elte.hu> References: <713731.28571.qm@web50701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <200810201452.04932.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20081020072236.GD12131@elte.hu> <48FC36B9.6000704@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48FC36B9.6000704@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE RBL: Envelope sender in blackholes.securitysage.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1369 Lines: 31 * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> i think Xen can withstand DMI scanning just fine. >> >> without having seen any background, my general feeling is that lguest >> should either do what Xen does and reserve the classic BIOS ranges >> that we probe - or we should make DMI scanning more robust by making >> sure real RAM ranges are never probed. (only ranges that the BIOS >> itself marks as reserved in the e820 map) > > We considered doing that, but decided that there was so many other > pieces of code around the place that assume that the ISA area is > special, that just reserving it was the best course of action. yeah - for _any_ virtual machine environment it's beneficial to look as much like a normal PC as possible, because normal PCs is where the code gets tested most. Nevertheless if this is the only current roadblock for lguest then i wouldnt find it objectionable to make DMI scanning more robust that way - the two are complimentary. [ With an initial transitionary period of generating printks and WARN()s when we try to scan general RAM areas. ] Ingo -- 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/