WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

Re: [Xen-users] AMD's VT for chipsets

To: "Petersson, Mats" <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] AMD's VT for chipsets
From: Gregory Gee <gregory.gee@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:45:20 -0400
Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 17:46:04 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0B018E15C3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0B018E15C3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
Petersson, Mats wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gregory Gee
Sent: 04 October 2006 14:20
To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] AMD's VT for chipsets

Thorolf Godawa wrote:
Hi,

I'm not sure if it's part of the translation or some other sort of
misunderstanding, but chipsets (non-processor components) are not
necessary for the AMD-V technology (formerly Pacifica) to operate
I think he means s.th. related to the problem of the
virtualisation of
the i/o that the AMD-CPUs should do better than the first Intel-implementation of VT.

AMD calls this "AMD I/O Virtualization Technology (IOMMU) Specification", you find a PDF here:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_
tech_docs/34434.pdf
The "Intel Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O
(VTd)" should be
implemented in a later version of Intel-VT (see PDF:
ftp://download.intel.com/technology/computing/vptech/Intel(r)_
VT_for_Direct_IO.pdf
).

But actually I don't know the status of this technique too and if there are really advantages for the user right now!
Wouldn't this allow PCI pass-through for SVM which isn't possible today? I find PCI pas-through really useful but I can't use it for Windows guest in SVM.

Yes, that and better security are the two key points of this type of
technology.
The problem with PCI pass-through is that the fully-virtualized OS
doesn't know the machine physical address, so when it tries to tell the
PCI device that it's got some data to work on, it gives the guest
physical address - which is most likely NOT the machine physical
address. IOMMU allows the mapping of DMA-memory from guest-physical
address to machine-physical address.
Since we can allow and disallow individual pages to be target to
PCI-devices (or any other IO-devices), it allows for better security in
the system, since a device that has a bug or security hole will still be
prevented from reading/writing addresses that aren't specifically
indicated as "allowed". Just like the MMU inside the CPU allows the
application to access some pieces of memory, whilst others are not
allowed to be accessed.
--
Mats

 Great, two questions.

1. Would this allow a PCI device that is not supported in Linux to be used in a Windows SVM dom?

2. When and would it be available for consumer boards or only Operton and high end MB?

Thanks,
Greg


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users