On 26.02.2026 03:50, Stewart Hildebrand wrote: > On 2/25/26 10:37, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 25.02.2026 00:12, Ariadne Conill wrote: >>> From: Steven Noonan <[email protected]> >>> >>> If we just use the host's BAR addresses, the domU might not attempt to >>> reconfigure the BAR ranges and may never try to map them with the IOMMU. >>> Zeroing them ensures the guest kernel knows the BARs are not configured >>> and needs to make its own choices about where to map the BARs. >> >> Yet for this, don't we first need to expose a full topology to the guest, >> i.e. at least a host bridge, and maybe further bridges? > While we eventually do want to expose (a) virtual bridge(s) to vPCI domUs > (this > work is currently in development), I don't think it's pre-requisite for the > code > change herein: clearly, leaking host BAR addresses to domUs isn't right, and > there's no need to wait to address that. > > With that said, the commit title/description don't align well with the code > change. Assuming we want to move the code change forward, for v2 of the patch > I > suggest dropping the 2nd half of the title, and reworking the commit > description > to focus on describing the code change at hand and less on what the domU might > do.
That would indeed work for me. Jan
