[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200430102939.GG5097@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:59:39 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...eaurora.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: konrad.wilk@...cle.com, mst@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
jan.kiszka@...mens.com, stefano.stabellini@...inx.com,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, tsoni@...eaurora.org,
pratikp@...eaurora.org, christoffer.dall@....com,
alex.bennee@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] virtio_mmio: hypervisor specific interfaces for
MMIO
* Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> [2020-04-30 11:08:22]:
> > This patch is meant to seek comments. If its considered to be in right
> > direction, will work on making it more complete and send the next version!
>
> What's stopping you from implementing the trapping support in the
> hypervisor? Unlike the other patches you sent out, where the guest memory
> is not accessible to the host, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to
> not having trapping support, or am I missing something here?
Hi Will,
I have had this discussion with hypervisor folks. They seem to be
concerned about complexity of having a VM's fault be handled in another
untrusted VM. They are not keen to add MMIO support.
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
Powered by blists - more mailing lists