From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52665)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1RtRzJ-0007aO-Qu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:52:14 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1RtRzI-0001BK-U2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:52:13 -0500
Received: from mail-pw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:39546)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1RtRzI-0001B6-OC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:52:12 -0500
Received: by pbaa11 with SMTP id a11so4265875pba.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F2C6517.3040203@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:52:07 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4F2AB552.2070909@redhat.com>
	<CAG7+5M0s_F93G3dPrRQaFMVv_hPzpd-wYEPApJUDGhh3vJuy-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG7+5M0s_F93G3dPrRQaFMVv_hPzpd-wYEPApJUDGhh3vJuy-A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api
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: Eric Northup <digitaleric@google.com>
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>

On 02/03/2012 12:07 PM, Eric Northup wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com>  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

>