From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] libxl: do not add a vkb backend to
 hvm guests
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:39:57 +0100
Message-ID: <1437737997.24746.76.camel@citrix.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507231824100.28668@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<1437672464-29909-1-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
	<9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD02F4D3393@AMSPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1507241056000.28668@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD02F4D37D1@AMSPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1507241132120.28668@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<1437736224.24746.71.camel@citrix.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1507241228400.28668@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507241228400.28668@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 12:29 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> 
> > There really ought to be a way at the libxl level (but not 
> > necessarily
> > in xl) to disable the depriv without having to arrange things "just 
> > so"
> > such that it doesn't occur...
> 
> I have already introduced a device_model_user option, would that be
> enough? We could check on device_model_user == root.

Sounds sufficient. If --runas=root does what is desired you may not
even need special handling.

Ian.