From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56815) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RZ5TR-0000HQ-5k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:47:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RZ5TQ-0003xs-53 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:47:09 -0500 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:59722) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RZ5TP-0003xk-Vf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:47:08 -0500 From: Paul Brook Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:46:59 +0000 References: <4EDFAF91.4070904@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201112091732.20358.paul@codesourcery.com> <3829383.AcPyiEYLpa@sifl> In-Reply-To: <3829383.AcPyiEYLpa@sifl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201112091846.59886.paul@codesourcery.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Anthony Liguori , Stefan Hajnoczi , Corey Bryant , Michael Halcrow , Eric Paris , Paul Moore , Ashley D Lai , Avi Kivity , Richa Marwaha , Amit Shah , Radim =?utf-8?q?Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99?= , Eduardo Terrell Ferrari Otubo , Lee Terrell , George Wilson > > Last time I checked at least one of the Intel/AMD schemes had been > > implemented, through I don't know if it's been merged, or had any serious > > performance tuning. My main intent was to raise this as a potentially > > viable alternative. Someone who actually cares about the answer can > > figure out the details and cobble together some benchmarks :-) > > Well, if we see no answers and see no interest it probably isn't a viable > alternative as no interest typically means no code. You're using circular logic. Based on that theory your proposal isn't viable either. If it was someone would have done it laready! Paul