Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] vfio/hisilicon: register the driver to vfio

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 09:28:46PM +0800, liulongfang wrote:
> >> So, I still don't understand what the security risk you are talking about is,
> >> and what do you think the security design should look like?
> >> Can you elaborate on it?
> > 
> > Each security domain must have its own PCI BDF.
> > 
> The basic unit to perform the live migration function is the VF, and the basic
> function of the VF is the business function of the device. If the live migration
> function and the business function are completely separated, and they are bound
> to their respective VFs, it will result in the ability to execute the business
> in the guest A functional VF cannot perform live migration, and a VF with a live
> migration function cannot perform business functions in the guest.
> 
> In fact, the scenario that requires live migration is to migrate its business
> functions to the VFs of other hosts when the VF's business functions are heavily
> loaded.
> This usage scenario itself requires that the VF needs to have these two functions
> at the same time.

Other vendors are managing, it is not an unsolvable problem.

I think these patches can't advance in any form without somehow
addressing the isolation issue.

Jason