From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bandan Das Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kvm: Enable -cpu option to hide KVM Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 15:03:00 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20140601162414.28708.22775.stgit@bling.home> <538C52AF.4010105@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <1401715821.9207.20.camel@ul30vt.home> <538CBC0D.8000704@msgid.tls.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Alex Williamson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Tokarev Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49323 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751949AbaFBTDI (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 15:03:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <538CBC0D.8000704@msgid.tls.msk.ru> (Michael Tokarev's message of "Mon, 02 Jun 2014 22:01:49 +0400") Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Michael Tokarev writes: > 02.06.2014 17:30, Alex Williamson wrote: >> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 14:32 +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: >>> 01.06.2014 20:25, Alex Williamson wrote: >>>> The latest Nvidia driver (337.88) specifically checks for KVM as the >>>> hypervisor and reports Code 43 for the driver in a Windows guest when >>>> found. Removing or changing the KVM signature is sufficient to allow >>>> the driver to load. >>> >>> Hmm.. Why does it do such thing? Is it in order to prevent the driver >>> to work in a virtualized windows, ie to prevent vga passthough to work? >>> >>> If that's the case, I think it is a lost game. Because they'll be adding >>> more, cleverer, checks in the next version. >> >> Then they'll be pissing off more users and driving them to AMD by doing >> so. In any case, having the ability to hide the hypervisor seems to >> stand on it's own. What if we want to test whether a guest behavior is >> the result of a paravirtual interface? What if a user wants to hide the >> hypervisor in order to further reduce the exposure surface to the VM? >> There are reasons beyond an arms race with Nvidia to want a feature like >> this. Thanks, > > You answer as if I were strongly against the change. I'm not. > What I'm against is about the reasoning. This way you're just > accepting the arm race. Couldn't the arms race be a little less explicit if the commit message is changed :) ? Why mention Nvidia at all ? Just state that the intended application is for cases where the user might still want to run a piece of software that bails out when KVM is detected. > Thanks, > > /mjt > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html