From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:45214)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Paul_Brook@mentor.com>) id 1RZ5fV-0001zn-3m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:59:37 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Paul_Brook@mentor.com>) id 1RZ5fU-0006CW-9v
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:59:37 -0500
Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:61122)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Paul_Brook@mentor.com>) id 1RZ5fU-0006CG-5g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:59:36 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:59:29 +0000
References: <4EDFAF91.4070904@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <3829383.AcPyiEYLpa@sifl>
	<201112091846.59886.paul@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <201112091846.59886.paul@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201112091859.29763.paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>, Corey Bryant <coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@google.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>, Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>, Ashley D Lai <adlai@us.ibm.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Richa Marwaha <rmarwah@us.ibm.com>, Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>, Radim =?utf-8?q?Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99?= <radimkrcmar@hpx.cz>, Eduardo Terrell Ferrari Otubo <eotubo@br.ibm.com>, Lee Terrell <lterrell@us.ibm.com>, George Wilson <gcwilson@us.ibm.com>

> > > Last time I checked at least one of the Intel/AMD schemes had been
> > > implemented, through I don't know if it's been merged, or had any
> > > serious performance tuning.  My main intent was to raise this as a
> > > potentially viable alternative.  Someone who actually cares about the
> > > answer can figure out the details and cobble together some benchmarks
> > > :-)
> > 
> > Well, if we see no answers and see no interest it probably isn't a viable
> > alternative as no interest typically means no code.
> 
> You're using circular logic.  Based on that theory your proposal isn't
> viable either. If it was someone would have done it already!

... and to be clear, the reason I don't care is because you're trying to solve 
a problem that doesn't interest me.  I can see the benefit you're trying to 
achieve, but for my workloads once the guest genie gets out of the bottle 
you've already lost.

Paul