[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070128.153707.30184351.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:37:07 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com
Cc: benh@...nel.crashing.org, jeff@...zik.org, greg@...ah.com,
tony.luck@...el.com, grundler@...isc-linux.org, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kyle@...isc-linux.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, brice@...i.com, shaohua.li@...el.com,
linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] MSI portability cleanups
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:26:44 -0700
> Yes. In general the mainline linux kernel does not support certain
> classes of stupidity. TCP offload engines, firmware drivers for
> hardware we care about, a fixed ABI to binary only modules, etc.
> It is the responsibility of the OS to setup MSI so we do it, not
> the firmware so we do it.
I absolutely disagree with you Eric, and I think you're being
rediculious.
If the hypervisor doesn't control the MSI PCI config space
register writes, this allows the device to spam PCI devices
which belong to other domains.
It's a freakin' reasonable design trade off decision, get over
it! :-)
Yes it can be done at the hardware level, and many hypervisor
based systems do that, but it's not the one-and-only true
way to implment inter-domain protection behind a single
PCI host controller.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists