>>> On 03.07.18 at 13:07, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 04:56:38AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 03.07.18 at 12:51, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote: >> > I don't think we ever want to allow DomU-s to manage the SR-IOV >> > capability, so this code is always going to be Dom0 only AFAICT. In >> > fact I think I'm going to add an assert to that effect in the SR-IOV >> > init handler. >> >> Did you consider nested virt here? > > I can see this making more sense for nested virt, still it's going to > require a non-trivial amount of work to make SR-IOV safe for DomUs to > manage, not to mention that DomUs would then be able to make pci > devices (VFs) appear and disappear, and likely collide with existing > devices?
Right, avoiding such collisions would be one thing to address. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
