From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [RFC] Next gen kvm api Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:52:07 -0600 Message-ID: <4F2C6517.3040203@codemonkey.ws> References: <4F2AB552.2070909@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: qemu-devel , Avi Kivity , KVM list , linux-kernel To: Eric Northup Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 02/03/2012 12:07 PM, Eric Northup wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > [...] >> >> Moving to syscalls avoids these problems, but introduces new ones: >> >> - adding new syscalls is generally frowned upon, and kvm will need several >> - syscalls into modules are harder and rarer than into core kernel code >> - will need to add a vcpu pointer to task_struct, and a kvm pointer to >> mm_struct > - Lost a good place to put access control (permissions on /dev/kvm) > for which user-mode processes can use KVM. > > How would the ability to use sys_kvm_* be regulated? Why should it be regulated? It's not a finite or privileged resource. Regards, Anthony Liguori > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754999Ab2BCWwN (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:52:13 -0500 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:49949 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753740Ab2BCWwM (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:52:12 -0500 Message-ID: <4F2C6517.3040203@codemonkey.ws> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:52:07 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Northup CC: Avi Kivity , linux-kernel , KVM list , qemu-devel Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api References: <4F2AB552.2070909@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/03/2012 12:07 PM, Eric Northup wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > [...] >> >> Moving to syscalls avoids these problems, but introduces new ones: >> >> - adding new syscalls is generally frowned upon, and kvm will need several >> - syscalls into modules are harder and rarer than into core kernel code >> - will need to add a vcpu pointer to task_struct, and a kvm pointer to >> mm_struct > - Lost a good place to put access control (permissions on /dev/kvm) > for which user-mode processes can use KVM. > > How would the ability to use sys_kvm_* be regulated? Why should it be regulated? It's not a finite or privileged resource. Regards, Anthony Liguori > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52665) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtRzJ-0007aO-Qu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:52:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtRzI-0001BK-U2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:52:13 -0500 Received: from mail-pw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:39546) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtRzI-0001B6-OC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:52:12 -0500 Received: by pbaa11 with SMTP id a11so4265875pba.4 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:52:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F2C6517.3040203@codemonkey.ws> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:52:07 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F2AB552.2070909@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Northup Cc: qemu-devel , Avi Kivity , KVM list , linux-kernel On 02/03/2012 12:07 PM, Eric Northup wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > [...] >> >> Moving to syscalls avoids these problems, but introduces new ones: >> >> - adding new syscalls is generally frowned upon, and kvm will need several >> - syscalls into modules are harder and rarer than into core kernel code >> - will need to add a vcpu pointer to task_struct, and a kvm pointer to >> mm_struct > - Lost a good place to put access control (permissions on /dev/kvm) > for which user-mode processes can use KVM. > > How would the ability to use sys_kvm_* be regulated? Why should it be regulated? It's not a finite or privileged resource. Regards, Anthony Liguori >