Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 0/6] Rangeset generalisation

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 16/02/17 14:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 16.02.17 at 14:42, <andrii.anisov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I'm really sorry, but I did not get your point here:
>>
>>> This concern makes me assume there might be quite many of them,
>>> which then makes this a no-go for unprivileged domains.
>>
>> Could you please provide wider explanation.
> 
> Well, as it had been discussed before, I thought you would have
> found it the latest along with Paul having pointed you at the
> patches. The issue is with resource consumption: We can't allow
> a guest to consume basically arbitrary amounts of memory in the
> rangeset control structures. Iirc this was in the context of the
> now stuck persistent memory support series as well as around
> Intel's graphics virtualization one.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect people to wade through all the
discussions of previous threads, complete with style nitpicks and
what-not, when it could be summarized in a sentence or two. :-)

I think the key thing with the graphics virtualization one, anyway, was
that the guest could *provoke* the devicemodel into creating arbitrary
numbers of "ranges" by using them in the GPT tables.  If the number of
ranges is large but bounded, that's less of an issue.

Andrii, could you describe a bit more how you had thought of using the
rangesets?

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel