On 2011-12-20 10:08, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 10:03 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2011-12-20 09:49, Sasha Levin wrote: >>> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 20:19 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: >>>> This option has no users and it exposes a security hole that we >>>> can allow devices to be assigned without iommu protection. Make >>>> KVM_DEV_ASSIGN_ENABLE_IOMMU a mandatory option. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c | 18 +++++++++--------- >>>> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c b/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c >>>> index 3ad0925..a251a28 100644 >>>> --- a/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c >>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c >>>> @@ -487,6 +487,9 @@ static int kvm_vm_ioctl_assign_device(struct kvm *kvm, >>>> struct kvm_assigned_dev_kernel *match; >>>> struct pci_dev *dev; >>>> >>>> + if (!(assigned_dev->flags & KVM_DEV_ASSIGN_ENABLE_IOMMU)) >>>> + return -EINVAL; >>> >>> Could we just drop KVM_DEV_ASSIGN_ENABLE_IOMMU and do it by default? >>> calling KVM_ASSIGN_PCI_DEVICE without that flag set it pretty >>> meaningless. >> >> There is that thing called "backward compatibility". :) > > Well, Alex suggested skipping deprecation period because there are > currently no users of KVM_ASSIGN_PCI_DEVICE without > KVM_DEV_ASSIGN_ENABLE_IOMMU, so it should be fine to just make it the > default behavior, no? This iommu-less mode used to "work" for older qemu-kvm version, and I think it should still do. Though it makes no sense, I fully agree. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
