From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: inter VM / PF-VF communication Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:37:54 -0500 Message-ID: <4E7BAAB2.8020809@codemonkey.ws> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Sagar Borikar Return-path: Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:53970 "EHLO mail-gx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753939Ab1IVVh6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:37:58 -0400 Received: by gxk6 with SMTP id 6so2297168gxk.19 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:37:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/22/2011 10:23 AM, Sagar Borikar wrote: > All, > > Sorry if I am not keeping up on the subject but wanted to know whether > there is any effort going on for inter VM communication / PF-VF > communication (in case of SR-IOV) > I see that most of SR-IOV capable NIC supports mailboxes for that > purpose to avoid the security hole. > Xen has virtual device implementation for the same. Should I presume > that such kind of effort is not on the radar and HW needs to own the > responsibility of filling the loop holes in security threats imposed > by VF? I'm not aware of any vendor these days that actually requires a PV driver for PF-VF communications. I know some toyed with the idea years ago but I thought malboxes have become defacto standard. Is there a specific card you think needs a pv mailbox? Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Thanks > Sagar > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html