Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-03 Thread Rusty Russell
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 22:20 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > I take it both sides of the virtual device drivers are turned on by > the lguest option? Yeah, to quote the code in drivers/lguest/lguest_bus.c: /* At the moment we build all the drivers into the kernel because they're so * simple: 8144

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-03 Thread Matt Mackall
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 10:43:09AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 10:13 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 11:02 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > > > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:43:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > >

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-03 Thread Rusty Russell
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 10:13 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 11:02 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:43:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > http://lguest.ozlabs.org/lguest-2.6.21-254.patch.gz > > > > > > See Documentation/lguest/lguest.txt for how

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-03 Thread Rusty Russell
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 11:02 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:43:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > http://lguest.ozlabs.org/lguest-2.6.21-254.patch.gz > > > > See Documentation/lguest/lguest.txt for how to run, > > drivers/lguest/README for the draft code

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-03 Thread Matt Mackall
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:43:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > Hi all, > > Lguest is a simple hypervisor which runs Linux under Linux, without > needing VT hardware. > > Two people asked if I had a version of lguest which worked on > other-than-bleeding-edge-mm kernels, so I did a

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-03 Thread Matt Mackall
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:43:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: Hi all, Lguest is a simple hypervisor which runs Linux under Linux, without needing VT hardware. Two people asked if I had a version of lguest which worked on other-than-bleeding-edge-mm kernels, so I did a

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-03 Thread Rusty Russell
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 11:02 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:43:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: http://lguest.ozlabs.org/lguest-2.6.21-254.patch.gz See Documentation/lguest/lguest.txt for how to run, drivers/lguest/README for the draft code documentation

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-03 Thread Rusty Russell
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 10:13 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 11:02 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:43:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: http://lguest.ozlabs.org/lguest-2.6.21-254.patch.gz See Documentation/lguest/lguest.txt for how to run,

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-03 Thread Matt Mackall
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 10:43:09AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 10:13 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 11:02 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:43:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-03 Thread Rusty Russell
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 22:20 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: I take it both sides of the virtual device drivers are turned on by the lguest option? Yeah, to quote the code in drivers/lguest/lguest_bus.c: /* At the moment we build all the drivers into the kernel because they're so * simple: 8144

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-02 Thread WANG Cong
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 02:20:32PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: >On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 11:57 +0800, WANG Cong wrote: >> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:00:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: >> >Thanks for the patch. This omission (in several places) was >> >deliberate. We can't really do anything

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-02 Thread Rusty Russell
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 11:57 +0800, WANG Cong wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:00:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Thanks for the patch. This omission (in several places) was > >deliberate. We can't really do anything sensible if the user unmapped > >the page. I assume you saw a gcc

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-02 Thread WANG Cong
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:00:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: >On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 03:33 +0800, WANG Cong wrote: >> Hi Rusty! >> >> I found you forgot to check the return value of copy_from_user, and >> here is the fix for drivers/lguest/interrupts_and_traps.c. >> >> Signed-off-by: WANG Cong

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-02 Thread Rusty Russell
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 03:33 +0800, WANG Cong wrote: > Hi Rusty! > > I found you forgot to check the return value of copy_from_user, and > here is the fix for drivers/lguest/interrupts_and_traps.c. > > Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi Wang! Thanks for the patch. This

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-02 Thread WANG Cong
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 03:33:03AM +0800, WANG Cong wrote: >Hi Rusty! > >I found you forgot to check the return value of copy_from_user, and here is >the fix for drivers/lguest/interrupts_and_traps.c. > Also this one, in drivers/lguest/hypercalls.c. Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-02 Thread WANG Cong
Hi Rusty! I found you forgot to check the return value of copy_from_user, and here is the fix for drivers/lguest/interrupts_and_traps.c. Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- --- linux-2.6.21-rc7-mm2/drivers/lguest/interrupts_and_traps.c.orig 2007-05-03 03:10:44.0

[RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-02 Thread Rusty Russell
Hi all, Lguest is a simple hypervisor which runs Linux under Linux, without needing VT hardware. Two people asked if I had a version of lguest which worked on other-than-bleeding-edge-mm kernels, so I did a backport of the latest version to 2.6.21.

[RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-02 Thread Rusty Russell
Hi all, Lguest is a simple hypervisor which runs Linux under Linux, without needing VT hardware. Two people asked if I had a version of lguest which worked on other-than-bleeding-edge-mm kernels, so I did a backport of the latest version to 2.6.21.

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-02 Thread WANG Cong
Hi Rusty! I found you forgot to check the return value of copy_from_user, and here is the fix for drivers/lguest/interrupts_and_traps.c. Signed-off-by: WANG Cong [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- linux-2.6.21-rc7-mm2/drivers/lguest/interrupts_and_traps.c.orig 2007-05-03 03:10:44.0 +0800

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-02 Thread WANG Cong
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 03:33:03AM +0800, WANG Cong wrote: Hi Rusty! I found you forgot to check the return value of copy_from_user, and here is the fix for drivers/lguest/interrupts_and_traps.c. Also this one, in drivers/lguest/hypercalls.c. Signed-off-by: WANG Cong [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-02 Thread Rusty Russell
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 03:33 +0800, WANG Cong wrote: Hi Rusty! I found you forgot to check the return value of copy_from_user, and here is the fix for drivers/lguest/interrupts_and_traps.c. Signed-off-by: WANG Cong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Wang! Thanks for the patch. This omission

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-02 Thread WANG Cong
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:00:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 03:33 +0800, WANG Cong wrote: Hi Rusty! I found you forgot to check the return value of copy_from_user, and here is the fix for drivers/lguest/interrupts_and_traps.c. Signed-off-by: WANG Cong [EMAIL

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-02 Thread Rusty Russell
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 11:57 +0800, WANG Cong wrote: On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:00:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: Thanks for the patch. This omission (in several places) was deliberate. We can't really do anything sensible if the user unmapped the page. I assume you saw a gcc warning

Re: [RELEASE] Lguest for 2.6.21

2007-05-02 Thread WANG Cong
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 02:20:32PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 11:57 +0800, WANG Cong wrote: On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:00:48AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: Thanks for the patch. This omission (in several places) was deliberate. We can't really do anything sensible if