[CC'ing Al] ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > Von: "Benjamin Berg" <benja...@sipsolutions.net> > An: "Johannes Berg" <johan...@sipsolutions.net>, "robh" <r...@kernel.org>, > "richard" <rich...@nod.at>, "anton ivanov" > <anton.iva...@cambridgegreys.com> > CC: "linux-um" <linux-um@lists.infradead.org> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Juni 2023 22:13:56 > Betreff: Re: UML for arm64
> Hi, > > On Thu, 2023-06-22 at 21:41 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Thu, 2023-06-22 at 13:22 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: >> > I'm interested in getting UML working on Arm. Is anyone aware of any >> > efforts to do this already? >> >> Not me ... But yeah, agree that it seems likely to require some >> refactoring, even if _some_ degree of attempts were made to keep arch- >> specific things there ... >> >> There might be a ton of arch-specific things in the ptrace code too I think Al did some work in the past to support archs other than x86. It was not arm64, though. ppc or sparc IIRC. Maybe he has some input. > At least a lot of the register handling, but that will always be > somewhat architecture specific. > >> ... , so perhaps it'd be easier to start with the seccomp-based model: >> >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-um/list/?series=329466 >> >> But that's not really done yet either. > > Yes, though I have quite some updates locally that solve the security > issues (i.e. prevent host syscalls from userspace). So, it does need > rebasing and I am sure bugfixes, but I think it is getting into a > pretty good shape overall. > > Either way, the old patchset will give you a good idea about how it all > works, the changes are mostly in the details. I am happy to push out a > new version sooner rather than later if it might help with any efforts > on your side. I think reviving the seccomp patch set is a good idea in any case. Maybe it is even a way to allow SMP support. Thanks, //richard _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um