>>> On 22.03.18 at 14:05, <x19...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:09:44 -0600 > "Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 22.03.18 at 12:56, <x19...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I really don't understand why some people have that fear of emulated >>> MMCONFIG -- it's really the same thing as any other MMIO range QEMU >>> already emulates via map_io_range_to_ioreq_server(). No sensitive >>> information exposed. It is related only to emulated PCI conf space >>> which QEMU already knows about and use, providing emulated PCI >>> devices for it. >> >>You continue to ignore the routing requirement multiple ioreq >>servers impose. > > If the emulated MMCONFIG approach will be modified to become > fully compatible with multiple ioreq servers (whatever they used for), I > assume there will be no objections that emulated MMCONFIG can't be > used? > I just want to clarify this moment -- why people think that > a completely emulated MMIO range, not related in any > way to host's MMCONFIG may compromise something.
Compromise? All that was said so far - afair - was that this is the wrong way round design wise. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
