On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 4:47:24 PM UTC+1, awokd wrote: > On Sat, December 16, 2017 2:25 am, Yuraeitha wrote: > > Aight, so the idea of this thread, is to get an overview of where we > > stand, that is, how far are we away from archiving GPU Passthrough on > > Qubes. > > If you look at how the "competition" is approaching it, you need GPU > hardware capable of virtualization such as Nvidia Grid, Radeon Sky(?), > Intel GVT-g and hypervisor support. > > https://www.nvidia.com/object/grid-technology.html > https://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/sky > https://01.org/igvt-g > https://code.vmware.com/article-detail/-/asset_publisher/8n011DnrSCHt/content/vsga-datasheet > https://docs.citrix.com/content/dam/docs/en-us/xenserver/xenserver-7-0/downloads/xenserver-7-0-configuring-graphics.pdf > > Not something I've ever played with, but it seems kind of like IOMMU to > me. You could write a software layer to provide slow virtualized GPUs, or > use hardware for faster ones. > > Of these, it seems like Intel's approach is the most open source friendly. > XenGT has working code. No idea how hard it would be to integrate with > Qubes, though. >
That's a very interesting perspective, to bring in the market movements and other open source developments into the discussion as well, possibly detecting spots that might work together with Qubes. The competition also seems to be getting more fierce as virtual augmentation and reality becomes bigger? That's a very good idea for topic discussion too, I agree. It's interesting questions you set in motion, like for example to ponder over how far these developments can be be put together with Qubes with our current or emerging means of tomorrow. Between software or hardware controlled IOMMU graphics, maybe the question for Qubes is which one of them is more secure though? I'm not a code developer my self, but from what I understand, complex software is hard to make secure, compared to well-made hardware minimizing use of software. If Qubes hypothetically were to adopt these, would the hardware approach be more secure here? Or maybe one can even use software controlled IOMMU in a less secure Stub-domain, for less important things as well? Kind of like a Qubes opt-in feature? I wonder how feasible this would be though, but it sounds really attractive to have user-choices like these. I haven't read through all the links and their interconnected topics yet, but plan to do that over the next couple of days as I have more time. The ones I read were quite interesting to read already. > > I must be tired, I initially wrote 'qubestions' instead of 'questions' > > here... aight, so possible questions for the discussion. > > I like it! Let's rename the FAQ to Frequently Asked Qubestions. huehue, mistakes when tired (or even when high) can lead to some interesting places sometimes :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/534e830a-cbed-4d37-99f8-9c9d47383d77%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
