Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Zachary Amsden wrote:

> I've already implemented the locking and repatching bits for VMI.


Incorrectly, I might add. The problem case for syscall patching is what do you do if there are in-service system calls? The comparable problem here is what if you interrupt code running in the old paravirt-ops, or worse, a section of code that you repatch when you do the switch?

That is a really nasty problem. You need a synchronization primitive which guarantees a flat stack, so you can't do it in the interrupt handler as I have tried to do. I'll bang my head on it awhile. In the meantime, were there ever any solutions to the syscall patching problem that might lend me a clue as to what to do (or not to do, or impossible?).

Thanks,

Zach
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux