On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 15:00 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > but yes, i agree that the hypervisor should have the ability to patch > > the syscall instruction of both the hypervisor interface and of the VDSO > > interface. But this wasnt implemented like that, and the #ifdef quirk > > just /prevents/ a sane solution like that from ever getting done the > > right way. > > > > Rusty, shouldn't this be a one-liner? No need to involve the hypervisor > here; the guest can s/syscall/int 80/ on its vdso page like it patches > cli and its ilk.
Probably, but this is a red herring: see previous reply. Andi was a little overzealous w/ CONFIG_PARAVIRT & COMPAT_VDSO, that's all. I've never thought of replacing the syscall insn. I'll see if I can come up with a good reason to want to 8) Rusty. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
