From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [patches] [PATCH] [21/22] x86_64: Extend bzImage protocol for relocatable bzImage Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:57:05 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20070428758.455116000@suse.de> <20070428175909.1D09D151CA@wotan.suse.de> <46338D72.70402@garzik.org> <4634483E.9030307@goop.org> <1177902195.30071.203.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463572B7.90202@zytor.com> <1177909434.30071.216.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1177990722.28659.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1177990722.28659.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Rusty Russell's message of "Tue, 01 May 2007 13:38:42 +1000") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Rusty Russell Cc: Jeff Garzik , patches@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vivek Goyal , "H. Peter Anvin" , virtualization List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Rusty Russell writes: > On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 09:34 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Reading this it occurs to me what I object to wasn't that clear. >> >> I have no problem with the testing of %cs to see if we are not in ring0. >> That part while a little odd is fine, and we will certainly need a test >> to skip the protected instructions in head.S >> >> What I object to in particular is having (struct lguest_info?) instead >> of using the standard format for kernel parameters pointed to in %esi. > > Here's a rough patch to see what it looks like from an lguest POV. It's > an improvement in many ways: I chose to hardcode the search for matching > backend rather than use paravirt_probe-style magic. Cool. > It'd be nicer if there were a "struct boot_params" declaration, but we > can't have everything. Well it will come. I have an old one in kexec-tools and HPA looks like he has one in his C rewrite. I'm not going to worry about going farther until the patches in flight settle down a little bit, but this looks promising. Eric From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030521AbXEAD5k (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:57:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932451AbXEAD5k (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:57:40 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:56144 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932398AbXEAD5j (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:57:39 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Rusty Russell Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Jeff Garzik , Andi Kleen , patches@x86-64.org, Vivek Goyal , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization Subject: Re: [patches] [PATCH] [21/22] x86_64: Extend bzImage protocol for relocatable bzImage References: <20070428758.455116000@suse.de> <20070428175909.1D09D151CA@wotan.suse.de> <46338D72.70402@garzik.org> <4634483E.9030307@goop.org> <1177902195.30071.203.camel@localhost.localdomain> <463572B7.90202@zytor.com> <1177909434.30071.216.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1177990722.28659.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:57:05 -0600 In-Reply-To: <1177990722.28659.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Rusty Russell's message of "Tue, 01 May 2007 13:38:42 +1000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rusty Russell writes: > On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 09:34 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Reading this it occurs to me what I object to wasn't that clear. >> >> I have no problem with the testing of %cs to see if we are not in ring0. >> That part while a little odd is fine, and we will certainly need a test >> to skip the protected instructions in head.S >> >> What I object to in particular is having (struct lguest_info?) instead >> of using the standard format for kernel parameters pointed to in %esi. > > Here's a rough patch to see what it looks like from an lguest POV. It's > an improvement in many ways: I chose to hardcode the search for matching > backend rather than use paravirt_probe-style magic. Cool. > It'd be nicer if there were a "struct boot_params" declaration, but we > can't have everything. Well it will come. I have an old one in kexec-tools and HPA looks like he has one in his C rewrite. I'm not going to worry about going farther until the patches in flight settle down a little bit, but this looks promising. Eric