Michael Tokarev <mjt@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
