On 12/27/2011 03:50 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 11:52:51AM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:14:51 -0200
> > Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > > > >btw mark_page_dirty() itself seems to assume mmu_lock protection that
> > > > >doesn't exist. Marcelo?
Hi,
I am currently do a project to detect malicious module. And I want to
use KVM, namely, using virtualization to achieve this?
Is that possible to virtualize a kernel module without a virtualized Linux?
For example, if I only want to virtualize a network device, the
network device still runs ins
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:06:47 +0200
Avi Kivity wrote:
> > There seems to be possible concurrent __set_bit()'s to the same word
> > which will result in bit loss.
> >
> > I was thinking to change the kvm-unit-tests' dirty log test to write
> > to two consecutive pages concurrently. Is this good fo
On 12/27/2011 05:15 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:06:47 +0200
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > > There seems to be possible concurrent __set_bit()'s to the same word
> > > which will result in bit loss.
> > >
> > > I was thinking to change the kvm-unit-tests' dirty log test to writ
Hi,
I am new to KVM stuff and had very BASIC (might be lame even) doubts
regarding KVM.
As per the various diagrams I have gone through in internet my
understanding is KVM is an hypervisor on top of which all VMs run.
In case of FULL VIRTUALIZATION .. KVM will be directly running on top
of HARDW
On 12/22/2011 02:13 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
The following changes since commit 03ecd2c80a64d030a22fe67cc7a60f24e17ff211:
virtio-serial-bus: Ports are expected to implement 'have_data' callback
(2011-12-21 15:00:29 -0600)
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub
From: Liu Ping Fan
Currently, vcpu can be destructed only when kvm instance destroyed.
Change this to vcpu's destruction before kvm instance, so vcpu MUST
and CAN be destroyed before kvm's destroy.
Signed-off-by: Liu Ping Fan
---
arch/x86/kvm/i8254.c | 10 +++--
arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 11:52:51AM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:14:51 -0200
> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> > > >btw mark_page_dirty() itself seems to assume mmu_lock protection that
> > > >doesn't exist. Marcelo?
> > > >
> >
> > Not mmu_lock protection, kvm->srcu protec
Avi Kivity wrote:
> > It should not be necessary, atomicity of updates to
> > memslot->dirty_bitmap, because of RCU updates to the memslot pointer
> > (note memslot = gfn_to_memslot(kvm, gfn); in mark_page_dirty).
> >
> > The order is:
> >
> > - update page data.
> > - grab memslot pointer.
> > -
On 2011-12-27 05:09, Richard Yao wrote:
> I forgot to include the patch. Sorry about that.
>
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> Commit 64c8f7b9a24b1de710ad8413da503d61ede6ae45 to Linux 2.6.32.y
>> broke kvm-kmod. There are preprocessor directives in kvm-kmod that
>> appear
(2011/12/27 17:38), Liu Ping Fan wrote:
> From: Liu Ping Fan
>
> Currently, vcpu can be destructed only when kvm instance destroyed.
> Change this to vcpu's destruction before kvm instance, so vcpu MUST
> and CAN be destroyed before kvm's destroy.
I really don't understand why this big change can
On 12/27/2011 11:58 AM, 吴锐 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am currently do a project to detect malicious module. And I want to
> use KVM, namely, using virtualization to achieve this?
> Is that possible to virtualize a kernel module without a virtualized Linux?
> For example, if I only want to virtualize a netw
On 12/25/2011 12:58 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Hi Avi,
>
> Here are a couple compile/trivial fixes for PPC KVM. Please make sure
> they all get to 3.2, worst case through -stable.
>
> I left out all the other fine commits that would be great to have in
> upstream due to limited testing on my side
On 2011-12-26 21:49, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> From 19caf1db1f93e6f6b736e1dfd5e91a0c7669adec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Liu Jinsong
> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:08:27 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] Expose tsc deadline timer cpuid to guest
>
> Depend on several factors:
> 1. Considering live migration,
On 12/27/2011 08:51 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 12/26/11 08:53, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 07:46 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> From: Boris Ostrovsky
>>>
>>> In some cases guests should not provide workarounds for errata even
>>> when the
>>> physical processor is affected. For example,
On 12/27/2011 05:03 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > > It should not be necessary, atomicity of updates to
> > > memslot->dirty_bitmap, because of RCU updates to the memslot pointer
> > > (note memslot = gfn_to_memslot(kvm, gfn); in mark_page_dirty).
> > >
> > > The order is:
2011/12/27 Takuya Yoshikawa :
> (2011/12/27 17:38), Liu Ping Fan wrote:
>> From: Liu Ping Fan
>>
>> Currently, vcpu can be destructed only when kvm instance destroyed.
>> Change this to vcpu's destruction before kvm instance, so vcpu MUST
>> and CAN be destroyed before kvm's destroy.
>
> I really d
17 matches
Mail list logo
