Re: [patch] paravirt: VDSO page is essential

[Avi Kivity]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> > > -unsigned int __read_mostly vdso_enabled = 0;
> > > -#else
> > > unsigned int __read_mostly vdso_enabled = 1;
> > > -#endif
> > >       
>
>   
> > Can't paravirt patch the syscall instruction like it does the rest of 
> > the kernel?
> >     
>
> we want to keep the guest as simple and unmodified as possible. And all 
> this #ifdef jungle /will/ bite back. Especially if the change goes in 
> with zero explanation like it did:
>
>     [PATCH] paravirt: Disable vdso by default when CONFIG_PARAVIRT is enabled
>
>     They don't work together and this way even glibc still works.
>
> i rather want an experimental feature (CONFIG_PARAVIRT) broken on some 
> hypervisors for a bit than an entire body of guest OSs getting used to 
> the "you dont have to deal with this VDSO annoyance by default" quirk 
> forever ...
>   

Sure, I agree with this patch.  I'm talking about an alternate solution 
so Xen can work with the vdso instead of #ifdefing away the kernel.

> 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.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/