Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxx> wrote on 07/06/2012 18:05:55: > It remains a fragile approach: > - host-side reverse translations may not return a stable result, thus > may require to redo this step several times > - the guest may decide to remove/disable the device you chose for > appending the IDT > - changing the real BAR size can confuse the guest, or it only maps > what it requires of the real device > That's why I consider it nasty. Yep, these are corner cases we should deal with but they are not part of the common case/critical path. > I'm wondering if redirecting (to different cores) or masking (at > device/IOAPIC/LAPIC level) of non-guest interrupts and only relying on > preemption timer/NMI isn't simpler. Then you wouldn't have to shadow the > IDT. Yep, as we suggested in the paper, that could be also an alternative. Is it really simpler ? Again, depends who you ask and what you need to change. All the alternatives have a set of pros and cons. -- 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
