On 2012-06-07 11:55, Abel Gordon wrote: > >>> Note this is not so simple, there are many other issues you should >>> consider. >> >> Is it just complicated, not upstreamable, or are the unsolved issues >> like security holes or the need to paravirtualize the guest? > > Well, I let you read the paper first :) It will answer all these questions. I'm on it. Two general remarks so far: - At least the preemption timer is not common x86 architecture but can only be found in VT-x. You should mention that you are focusing on Intel. - You discuss interrupt delivery without stating that you have MSIs in mind. Some aspects may be helpful for legacy interrupts as well, but you obviously can't achieve exit-less operation there. Not an issue, should just be made clear. > > In a nutshell, > Complicated: that always depends who you ask and relative to what you > consider something complicated. ELI changes some critical points in KVM. > Unsolved issues: there are some issues solves in theory but not implemented > Security holes: not if you are OK with the threat model we describe in the > paper The thread model looks sane, but I'm not feeling well with the "let's poll the guest to see if it misbehaved" solution. It should work but is a bit ugly. > need paravirtualize the guest: no if you have x2APIC. ...and the guest makes use of it. This excludes older OSes. When did Windows start to use it? Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
