From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable SR-IOV instantiation through /sys file Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 23:16:46 -0700 Message-ID: <20171029061646.GA28105@infradead.org> References: <20171024200426.62811-1-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <20171024234351.0af0ff4a@t450s.home> <20171025000654.7621b84e@t450s.home> <20171028001907.7b8fa60d@t450s.home> <1509146439.11655.60.camel@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Wang, Liang-min" , "alex.williamson@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "bhelgaas@google.com" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" To: "Duyck, Alexander H" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1509146439.11655.60.camel@intel.com> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:20:41PM +0000, Duyck, Alexander H wrote: > I don't see this so much as a security problem per-se. It all depends > on the hardware setup. If I recall correctly, there are devices where > the PF function doesn't really do much other than act as a bit more > heavy-weight VF, and the actual logic is handled by a firmware engine > on the device. Can you cite an example? While those surely could exist in theory, I can't think of a practical example. Maybe we can start with the practical use case for this patch. That is what device is this intended for?