From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: Enhance perf to support KVM Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:53:03 +0200 Message-ID: <4B87B61F.2070406@redhat.com> References: <1267068445.1726.25.camel@localhost> <1267089644.12790.74.camel@laptop> <1267152599.1726.76.camel@localhost> <20100226090147.GH15885@elte.hu> <4B879A2F.50203@redhat.com> <20100226103545.GA7463@elte.hu> <4B87A6BF.3090301@redhat.com> <1267184916.22519.576.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ingo Molnar , "Zhang, Yanmin" , ming.m.lin@intel.com, sheng.yang@intel.com, Jes Sorensen , KVM General , Zachary Amsden , Gleb Natapov , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Fr??d??ric Weisbecker , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Arjan van de Ven To: Peter Zijlstra Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28371 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935428Ab0BZLxo (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:53:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1267184916.22519.576.camel@laptop> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/26/2010 01:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 12:47 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Not really. The guest and host admins are usually different people, who >> may, being admins, even actively hate each other. The guest admin would >> probably regard it as a security hole. It's probably useful for the >> single-host scenario, and of course for developers. >> > LOL, let me be the malicious host admin, then you can be the guest, > there is no way you can protect yourself. If you don't trust the host, > don't use it. > > All your IO flows through the host, all your sekrit keys are in memory, > there is no security. > That's true. But guest admins are going to be unhappy about a file server serving their data to the host all the same. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.