From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH 2 of 2] xl, libxl: Add per-device and global permissive config options for pci passthrough Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 17:56:53 +0100 Message-ID: <4F79DA55.7090706@eu.citrix.com> References: <62b1030a2485536caf99.1333363657@kodo2> <20345.50129.248371.995505@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <4F79C912.9010504@eu.citrix.com> <20345.51964.865778.569742@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20345.51964.865778.569742@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Jackson Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 02/04/12 16:51, Ian Jackson wrote: > George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2 of 2] xl, libxl: Add per-device and global permissive config options for pci passthrough"): >> I'm not sure how we can make it more definite. What's possible (i.e., >> the security implications) entirely depends on the card; and what's >> likely (i.e., the stability implications) entirely depends on the card >> and the driver. Short of giving a short discourse on the vices of >> various cards PCI config space (which is entirely inappropriate for a >> man page, IMHO), I'm not sure what more we can say. > Is it generally or usually the case that this option will more > completely expose the host ? > >> I thought it was unnecessary to duplicate, but I can do so if you prefer. > I guess that depends on how strong a statement it is. > >>> I think you should consider breakibg out the sysfs writing function >>> and refactoring with the very similar code in libxl__device_pci_reset, >>> rather than introducing yet another clone. >> I shall consider it. :-) I think for this patch series I'm probably going to leave it; I'll work on it when I add the PCI rebinding stuff. (Otherwise there's the possibility I may end up having to refactor it again.) -George