Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757444Ab2BCSHy (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2012 13:07:54 -0500 Received: from mail-vx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]:41225 "EHLO mail-vx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757428Ab2BCSHT (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2012 13:07:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4F2AB552.2070909@redhat.com> References: <4F2AB552.2070909@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:07:18 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] Next gen kvm api From: Eric Northup To: Avi Kivity Cc: KVM list , linux-kernel , qemu-devel X-System-Of-Record: true Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 792 Lines: 18 On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: [...] > > Moving to syscalls avoids these problems, but introduces new ones: > > - adding new syscalls is generally frowned upon, and kvm will need several > - syscalls into modules are harder and rarer than into core kernel code > - will need to add a vcpu pointer to task_struct, and a kvm pointer to > mm_struct - Lost a good place to put access control (permissions on /dev/kvm) for which user-mode processes can use KVM. How would the ability to use sys_kvm_* be regulated? -- 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/