Re: [Lguest] lguest: unhandled trap

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/