[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adab330424e9faea591560c4097fc644.squirrel@twosheds.infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:21:34 -0000
From: "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...capital.net>,
"Benjamin Herrenschmidt" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"Christian Borntraeger" <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Martin Schwidefsky" <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
"Sebastian Ott" <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-s390" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"Cornelia Huck" <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
"Joerg Roedel" <jroedel@...e.de>,
"Linux Virtualization" <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@....de>, "KVM" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Marcel Apfelbaum" <marcel.a@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] virtio DMA API core stuff
> There's that, and there's an "I care about security, but
> do not want to burn up cycles on fake protections that
> do not work" case.
It would seem to make most sense for this use case simply *not* to expose
virtio devices to guests as being behind an IOMMU at all. Sure, there are
esoteric use cases where the guest actually nests and runs further guests
inside itself and wants to pass through the virtio devices from the real
hardware host. But presumably those configurations will have multiple
virtio devices assigned by the host anyway, and further tweaking the
configuration to put them behind an IOMMU shouldn't be hard.
--
dwmw2
--
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