On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 15:03 -0400, Bandan Das wrote: > 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. Would we be helping our users by omitting that from the commitlog though? Thanks, Alex -- 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
