On 03/03/15 09:40, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Andrey, > > I believe that on Xen we should disable kasan, would like confirmation Why? This is the first of heard of this. > from someone on xen-devel though. Here's the thing though -- if true > -- I'd like to do it *properly*, where *properly* means addressing a > bit of architecture. A simple Kconfig slap seems rather reactive. I'd > like to address a way to properly ensure we don't run into this and > other similar issues in the future. The CR4 shadow issue was another > recent example issue, also introduced via v4.0 [0]. We can't keep > doing this reactively. > > Let's go down the rabbit hole for a bit. HAVE_ARCH_KASAN will be > selected on x86 when: > > if X86_64 && SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP > > Now Xen should not have SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP but PVOPs' goal is to enable Why? Again, this is the first I've heard of this as well. FWIW, all the Xen configs we use have SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP enabled. David > distributions to be able to have a single binary kernels and let the > rest be figured out, so we can't just disable SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP for > Xen alone, we want to build Xen.. or part of Xen and perhaps keep > SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP, and only later figure things out. > > How do we do this cleanly and avoid future reactive measures? If the > answer is not upon us, I'd like to at least highlight the issue so > that in case we do come up with something its no surprise PVOPs is > falling short for that single binary pipe dream right now. > > [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/23/328 > > Luis > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
