RE: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/5] virtio: introduce SUSPEND bit and vq state

Parav Pandit <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.virtio-dev
Message-ID <PH0PR12MB54815BB722153D38E8496562DCFAA@PH0PR12MB5481.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
> From: Jason Wang <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9:58 AM
> 
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 2:55 PM Parav Pandit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Zhu, Lingshan <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 12:19 PM
> >
> >
> > > so admin vq based LM solution can be a side channel attacking
> > > surface
> > It will be part of the DSM whenever it will be used in future.
> > Hence, it is not attack surface.
> 
> DSM is not a part of TVM. So it really depends on what kind of work did the
> admin virtqueue do. For commands that can't be self-contained like
> provisioning, it is fine, since it is done before the TDI assignment. But it not
> necessarily for your migration proposal. It seems you've found another case
> that self-containing is important:
> allowing the owner to access the member after TDI is attached to TVM is a side
> channel attack.

TVM and DSM specs will be extended in future when we get there, so core hypervisor will not be involved.
With trap+mediation, it is involved.

Lingshan wanted to take this TDISP extension in future.
So are you both aligned or not yet?
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.