Am 12.09.2010 17:31, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 09/12/2010 01:11 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 09/10/2010 10:48 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>> 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 :-) >>> >> >> Oh, I thought you were against the idea in itself for some reason. >> >> I'll patch it for 0.13, but any ideas on how it should be rework for >> master? > > Glauber's old Accel interface was close to the right approach. We need > to abstract the exec.c interfaces to use a function pointer table and > have a TCG and KVM implementation. The function pointer tables can then > be registered by a module_init() and we can simply not include the kvm > or TCG files are build time to disable the functionality. Even more flexible would be to have them linked in on demand (as specified on the command line). Additional, in certain contexts unsupported features could then be shipped separately without having to provide n versions of the common core. A second step to build-time configurability, of course. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
