linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] KVM: x86: KVM_MEM_PCI

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: <20200918093313.7qfsgi7o46imqunc@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
Date:   Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:33:13 +0200
From:   Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Julia Suvorova <jsuvorov@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] KVM: x86: KVM_MEM_PCI_HOLE memory

  Hi,

> > We could probably wire up ecam (arm/virt style) for pcie support, once
> > the acpi support for mictovm finally landed (we need acpi for that
> > because otherwise the kernel wouldn't find the pcie bus).
> > 
> > Question is whenever there is a good reason to do so.  Why would someone
> > prefer microvm with pcie support over q35?
> 
> The usual reasons to use pcie apply to microvm just the same.
> E.g.: pass through of pcie devices?

Playground:
  https://git.kraxel.org/cgit/qemu/log/?h=sirius/microvm-usb

Adds support for usb and pcie (use -machine microvm,usb=on,pcie=on
to enable).  Reuses the gpex used on arm/aarch64.  Seems to work ok
on a quick test.

Not fully sure how to deal correctly with ioports.  The gpex device
has a mmio window for the io address space.  Will that approach work
on x86 too?  Anyway, just not having a ioport range seems to be a
valid configuation, so I've just disabled them for now ...

take care,
  Gerd