On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 08:00:22AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 09:47:55 +0100 > "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 02:30:47PM -0400, Bandan Das wrote: > > > "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > Adding Alex & Bandan, since they signed off the kernel patch which > > > > I'm thinking either pci-back should be made to work more like > > > > vfio, or the kernel patch should be reverted or fixed to take > > > > account of the way pci-back works. > > > > > > > > Whichever way, I don't consider this a libvirt problem to solve. As > > > > Linus' always says - the kernel must never break existing userspace > > > > > > Agreed, but in this specific case, the usage is unsafe since unknown indexes > > > are potentially being passed to the driver operations. It should always have been > > > 3. to begin with. > > > > Whether the userspace usage is good or not is irrelevant - this kernel change > > has broken existing userspace apps and that is not acceptable and must be fixed. > > > > I'm fine with suggestions to change future libvirt to work in a better way, > > but we need to fix the regressions seen by *current* libvirt releases > > I don't think this is a reasonable demand. For one, the change was > made 2yrs ago and nobody noticed until now, I don't think there are > stable kernel releases to cover all those kernels. There must be some > sort of statute of limitations. Oh sorry, I totally missed the date on that. I was thinking this was a recent kernel regression. I agree that if 2+ years have passed, this ship has sailed. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list