[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXGC9X6fndftzUKKQ76TXSARHotW8Kz3KcO6opQ-oLaqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:24:15 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
"qemu-devel@...gnu.org Developers" <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, peterx@...hat.com,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
Kevin Wolf <kwolf@...hat.com>,
Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>, qemu-block@...gnu.org,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] fixup! virtio: convert to use DMA api
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:29 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> For x86, you *can* enable virtio-behind-IOMMU if your DMAR tables tell
> the truth, and even legacy kernels ought to cope with that.
> FSVO 'ought to' where I suspect some of them will actually crash with a
> NULL pointer dereference if there's no "catch-all" DMAR unit in the
> tables, which puts it back into the same camp as ARM and Power.
I think x86 may get a bit of a free pass here. AFAIK the QEMU IOMMU
implementation on x86 has always been "experimental", so it just might
be okay to change it in a way that causes some older kernels to OOPS.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists