Hi Eric,

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Auger Eric <eric.au...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 13/04/18 11:19, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Auger Eric <eric.au...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/04/18 11:24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>> If a device is part of a PM Domain (e.g. power and/or clock domain), its
>>>> power state is managed using Runtime PM.  Without Runtime PM, the device
>>>> may not be powered up, causing subtle failures, crashes, or system
>>>> lock-ups when the device is accessed by the guest.
>>> the device may not be powered up/clcoked or power/clock may be switched
>>> off while the guest uses it.
>>>> Fix this by adding Runtime PM support, powering the device when the VFIO
>>>> device is opened by the guest.
>>>> Note that while more fine-grained power management could be implemented
>>>> on the guest side, if exported, this would be inherently unsafe, as
>>>> abusing it may kill the whole system.
>>> Please can you elaborate on this remark please?
>> If power-management of the device would be delegated to the guest, and the
>> guest forgets to enable device power before accessing the device's registers,
>> this could lock up the system, and thus disturb both the host and other 
>> guests.
> Wouldn't you need to assign another device or use para-virt to allow the
> guest to perform this power management control? I think you can remove
> this paragraph from the commit message.

Yes, that needs additional exporting of power-management (cfr. the "if
I just wanted to mention the caveat, as eventually, someone is going to
suggest doing this ;-)

But if you think the comment should be removed, I can of course do so.



Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Reply via email to