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 >