From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: philosophically about IGD pass-through (was: feature suggestion: DMAR table emulation for Xen) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 13:30:13 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4BED3854.9090801@invisiblethingslab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BED3854.9090801@invisiblethingslab.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Joanna Rutkowska Cc: "Han, Weidong" , "Cihula, Joseph" , "Kay, Allen M" , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 14/05/2010 12:47, "Joanna Rutkowska" wrote: > It's good to distinguish 3D acceleration for the *Window Manager* vs. 3D > acceleration for the *apps*. In Qubes we keep the Window Manager in > Dom0, so, as long as the graphics driver is not broken, the Window > Manager gets all the fancy 3D effects, just like on the native. > > The only(?) advantage you gain by using graphics passthorugh is for the > apps. But is it really worth it? How many 3D-capable apps business users > use today? Google Earth? Anything else? So, in order to support Google > Earth, is it really worth to introduce potential VM escape attacks? Well, XenClient != Qubes. ;-) Different system architecture; different threat model; and probably different usage scenarios as well. -- Keir