From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V4 18/18] libxl: add
	evtchn_extended_allowed flag
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:56:12 +0000
Message-ID: <513631BC.9020105@citrix.com>
References: <1362486640-14707-1-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	<1362486640-14707-19-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	<20789.63420.221613.601890@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<1362503503.4748.46.camel@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<20790.11694.181357.789414@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<20130305175133.GB11446@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130305175133.GB11446@zion.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Cc: "Keir (Xen.org)" <keir@xen.org>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, "jbeulich@suse.com" <jbeulich@suse.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 05/03/13 17:51, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 05:38:54PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Wei Liu writes ("Re: [RFC PATCH V4 18/18] libxl: add evtchn_extended_allowed flag"):
>>> On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 13:48 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> This fails to explain why one might want to disable this.  The only
>>>> reason that comes to my mind is in case it has a security
>>>> vulnerability, an admin who wasn't currently using it could disable
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> Are there other reasons ?
>>>
>>> It is not for security reason.
>>>
>>> The main concern is that a) extended event channel might use too much
>>> global mapping space in Xen; b) in 3-level ABI's case, normal DomU will
>>> never consume so many event channels.
>>
>> This is rather opaque from the documentation as proposed.  Perhaps a
>> limit on the total number of event channels for a domain would make
>> more sense ?
> 
> I will improve the documentation. But putting a limit on total number of
> event channels for a domain for now is not what I expect, because a)
> having limit on 2/3-level event channels brings no significant
> improvement, b) the infrastructure to notify a guest about its limit
> doesn't exists.

The user-visible limit option could be toolstack only.  i.e., internally
libxc decides a limit of > 4096 (> 1024 for a 32-bit x86 guest) requires
enabling extended event channels.

David