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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] x86: add support for computing the instruction length

  • To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Mihai DonÈu <mdontu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 20:27:47 +0300
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, keir@xxxxxxx, Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Comment: DomainKeys? See http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 17:28:09 +0000
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=bitdefender.com; b=DgxgwVspe3P7nzH8kmzREy0fJB7PiMqLkR9oJqrcx/IBkv+a0/wW9OC4eOeZ7XHCMyrDvn5VDwe8Tv5cJatqjnicK7lo97SyOrYsFQ3/uB+jCcvLSKVQYN19+5Cg63Zi2012vqq6+X6a0Mj4Wb/u5tf60oetJYQ6NkYzDHXsZU8kW7fO+AA4N37uuWEMT1KwjH8F+6eMTOfgOAXHKXLXDrGvx2dJR/7v+1MPyETiADmVu28eOfkrilUH2ceVR1G54LWuFqOLsVd7p+2WVd1ZudPgM5Pkv77gRHVHCjOMLVP4ala6zUdbnAngK5iakJJj8JQi7gYkfR8o9pD4CAVIfQ==; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Organization:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-BitDefender-Scanner:X-BitDefender-Spam:X-BitDefender-SpamStamp:X-BitDefender-CF-Stamp;
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>

On Tuesday 09 September 2014 17:25:58 Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 09.09.14 at 18:01, <mdontu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I've opted to send a new mail so I can remove Masami from CC, as he's
> > probably not interested in the rest of the conversation.
> > 
> > Right now we have two patches which work around x86/emulator
> > limitations:
> > 
> >  * one computes the instruction length;
> >  * the other uses single stepping to jump over unsupported instructions;
> > 
> > Adding support for the complete x86(_64) instruction set to the
> > existent emulator in Xen would make those two unneeded and while I
> > would like to try my hand at it, I'm not sure the effort would be pay
> > off. Not to mention that I would very much like to _somehow_ catch the
> > 4.5 deadline. I wonder if it's possible to do this in iterations: take
> > this (or a decent derivation of it) in, while RÄzvan and I work on doing
> > a better work for 4.6. Am I pushing it? :-)
> Personally I don't think this makes sense to push for 4.5, but in the
> end it'll be Konrad's call. We already have enough other half-way
> reviewed patch series that need finalizing, so I don't think this series
> (which was posted just once many weeks ago) is a candidate.
> Furthermore I'm rather unconvinced of this being code useful to
> other than just your product.

I don't know how to dispel this belief, which I think comes from the
fact that currently we appear to be the only security vendor to open
source at least a part of our work on using hypervisors as a security
tool (at least in this fashion). Our end goal is to create a generic
interface which anyone can use to do what we are proposing and put the
effort into building a technology on top of it so that we can say for
certain what such an interface should offer. If either my or RÄzvan's
suggestions/needs look specific, it's only because no one else outside
Bitdefender spoke out (and I know of a few who are silently following
this thread).

> And finally, we had (with other submitters) some bad experience in the
> past taking what they promised they would clean up later.

Fair enough.

Mihai DonÈu

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.