Link to Paolo Bonzini's "Is QEMU Too Complex" talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMQtog6KUlo

still surprised that after working on Unicorn (uses QEMU engine, but with Python API to CPU instruction set and register set, useful for malware analysis) that the Intel TLB invalidate cache doesn’t work if the immediate address points to within its opcode’s own tiny operands.

Bah! A foolproof detector of being at virtualization within guest level is to use XOR opcode with Gx operand; and witness no change of its self-modified operand.

this was published yesterday and very clearly states:

[LWN subscriber-only content]

From the LWN FAQ:

> What are subscriber links

>A subscriber link is a mechanism by which LWN subscribers may grant free access to specific LWN articles to others. It takes the form of a special link which bypasses the subscription gate for that article.

> Where is it appropriate to post a subscriber link?

> Almost anywhere. Private mail, messages to project mailing lists, and blog entries are all appropriate. As long as people do not use subscriber links as a way to defeat our attempts to gain subscribers, we are happy to see them shared.

https://lwn.net/op/FAQ.lwn

I know it very well as a paying subscriber and I don't think posting fresh new subscriber-only content to HN fits what you pasted.

In fact IMHO it's the very opposite of "As long as people do not use subscriber links as a way to defeat our attempts to gain subscribers"

I read it in a different way You are free to share as long as you don't actively try to get around the subscription model.

Posting these kinds of Articles on NH can lead to someone wanting to read more lwn articles and pay for it or be forced to dig through the web for premium links

fair enough although

Almost anywhere. Private mail, messages to project mailing lists, and blog entries are all appropriate.

sounds very different to me from HN, one of the most trafficked tech news aggregation websites

The editor explicitly allows HN submissions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5689018

please read the entire comment, not only the beginning (forgetting for a moment that it's from 2013, 8 years later the situation might be different):

"Certainly I don't want large amounts of our content to be distributed this way, but an occasional posting that puts an LWN article at #1 on HN is going to do us far more good than harm."

You specifically have done this at least a couple of times recently.

We see these accusations in such threads regularly and I'm sick and tired of it. I will stop posting LWN links altogether.

Congratulations, now go bully someone else.

Perhaps go reread your own posts, because if you weren’t trying to medium-aggressively bully it is certainly coming across that way.

Anything beyond the initial (presumably well intentioned but mistargeted) raising of the LWN note reads as an attempt at policing the policies of both HN and LWN by haranguing.