From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wright Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] qemu-kvm-0.13.0-rc1 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:55:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20100910195556.GC23988@sequoia.sous-sol.org> References: <20100908162918.GA27948@amt.cnet> <4C87EC78.9030800@xutrox.com> <4C87F302.7050702@codemonkey.ws> <4C887C12.2060701@redhat.com> <4C88DA62.4050304@codemonkey.ws> <4C8A1ACD.6090903@redhat.com> <20100910193101.GB23988@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <4C8A8B8E.6060806@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Chris Wright , Avi Kivity , Arjan Koers <0h61vkll2ly8@xutrox.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from sous-sol.org ([216.99.217.87]:46193 "EHLO sequoia.sous-sol.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754408Ab0IJT4K (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:56:10 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C8A8B8E.6060806@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Anthony Liguori (anthony@codemonkey.ws) wrote: > On 09/10/2010 02:31 PM, Chris Wright wrote: > >* Avi Kivity (avi@redhat.com) wrote: > >> On 09/09/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>>>It's perfectly reasonable to want to avoid building the tcg code > >>>>if you aren't going to use it. > >>>Why? It doesn't do any harm to have extra code. > >>It's half a megabyte of code. > >And half a day to compile ;) > > > >>Also, it's better not to have code > >>snippets that call mprotect(PROT_EXEC) in your executable. > >I agree, is there any reason not to enable compiling less into the binary? > >There are folks interested in eliminating as much as possible to reduce > >the attack surface and auditing requirements, for example. > > It's not a bad idea, it's just that what --disable-cpu-emulation > does is evil. Being that I wrote the implementation, I'm quite > confident in declare it as such :-) Heh > It was initially a work around in the dyngen days because a GCC 3.x > compiler wasn't available for PPC 44x easily. It's always been the > wrong approach to addressing the problem though and since we don't > have weird compiler dependencies anymore we really should remove it. OK, I see. Thanks for clarifying. thanks, -chris