Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel