On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 05:56:59AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2018-08-06 at 16:46 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > Right, we'll need some quirk to disable balloons in the guest I > > > suppose. > > > > > > Passing something from libvirt is cumbersome because the end user may > > > not even need to know about secure VMs. There are use cases where the > > > security is a contract down to some special application running inside > > > the secure VM, the sysadmin knows nothing about. > > > > > > Also there's repercussions all the way to admin tools, web UIs etc... > > > so it's fairly wide ranging. > > > > > > So as long as we only need to quirk a couple of devices, it's much > > > better contained that way. > > > > So just the balloon thing already means that yes management and all the > > way to the user tools must know this is going on. Otherwise > > user will try to inflate the balloon and wonder why this does not work. > > There is *dozens* of management systems out there, not even all open > source, we won't ever be able to see the end of the tunnel if we need > to teach every single of them, including end users, about platform > specific new VM flags like that. > > .../... In the end I suspect you will find you have to. > > Here's another example: you can't migrate a secure vm to hypervisor > > which doesn't support this feature. Again management tools above libvirt > > need to know otherwise they will try. > > There will have to be a new machine type for that I suppose, yes, > though it's not just the hypervisor that needs to know about the > modified migration stream, it's also the need to have a compatible > ultravisor with the right keys on the other side. > > So migration is going to be special and require extra admin work in all > cases yes. But not all secure VMs are meant to be migratable. > > In any case, back to the problem at hand. What a qemu flag gives us is > just a way to force iommu at VM creation time. I don't think a qemu flag is strictly required for a problem at hand. > This is rather sub-optimal, we don't really want the iommu in the way, > so it's at best a "workaround", and it's not really solving the real > problem. This specific problem, I think I agree. > As I said replying to Christoph, we are "leaking" into the interface > something here that is really what's the VM is doing to itself, which > is to stash its memory away in an inaccessible place. > > Cheers, > Ben. I think Christoph merely objects to the specific implementation. If instead you do something like tweak dev->bus_dma_mask for the virtio device I think he won't object. -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
