On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 09:28:46PM +0800, liulongfang wrote: > >> So, I still don't understand what the security risk you are talking about > >> is, > >> and what do you think the security design should look like? > >> Can you elaborate on it? > > > > Each security domain must have its own PCI BDF. > > > The basic unit to perform the live migration function is the VF, and the basic > function of the VF is the business function of the device. If the live > migration > function and the business function are completely separated, and they are > bound > to their respective VFs, it will result in the ability to execute the business > in the guest A functional VF cannot perform live migration, and a VF with a > live > migration function cannot perform business functions in the guest. > > In fact, the scenario that requires live migration is to migrate its business > functions to the VFs of other hosts when the VF's business functions are > heavily > loaded. > This usage scenario itself requires that the VF needs to have these two > functions > at the same time.
Other vendors are managing, it is not an unsolvable problem. I think these patches can't advance in any form without somehow addressing the isolation issue. Jason