linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/3] KVM: x86: KVM_HC_RT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a81e4091-6d00-141b-7f3c-3331b0f34892@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Sep 2017 15:49:33 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] KVM: x86: KVM_HC_RT_PRIO hypercall (host-side)

On 21/09/2017 15:32, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> So the guest can change the scheduling decisions at the host level?
> And the host HAS to follow it? There is no policy override for the
> host to say - nah, not going to do it?
> 
> Also wouldn't the guest want to always be at SCHED_FIFO? [I am thinking
> of a guest admin who wants all the CPU resources he can get]

Yeah, I do not understand why there should be a housekeeping VCPU that
is running at SCHED_NORMAL.  If it hurts, don't do it...

Paolo