Rusty Russell wrote: > On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 00:28 +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 13:06 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >>> Subject: [patch] paravirt: VDSO page is essential >>> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo at elte.hu> >>> >>> commit 3bbf54725467d604698721384d858b5983b87e8f disables the VDSO for >>> CONFIG_PARAVIRT kernels. This #ifdeffery was a bad change: the VDSO is >>> an essential component of Linux, and this change forces all of them to >>> use int $0x80 - including sane ones like KVM. (If a hypervisor does not >>> handle the VDSO properly then it can work things around via the vdso=0 >>> boot option. Or CONFIG_PARAVIRT should not have been merged. But in any >>> case, it is a basic taste issue: we DO NOT #ifdef around core features >>> like this!) >>> >> I agree with the criticism, dislike the snarly comments, and disagree >> with this patch. >> > > And my patch was pretty crack-induced too. Sorry. > > I shouldn't have been thinking about using CONFIG options at all: we > should simply disable the vdso if CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=y when we > *actually* reserve top memory. > > This still need some work (doing that now), but do people like the idea? > > The current "vdso_disabled" flag merely disabled the ELF note, so it > needs to be made a little stronger, to not set up the vdso at all. > I had just sent this out for internal review... -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: compat-vdso-broken Url: http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/virtualization/attachments/20070305/b14180f5/attachment.bat
