Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/5] virtio: introduce SUSPEND bit and vq state
"Zhu, Lingshan" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.virtio-dev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 9/19/2023 3:32 PM, Parav Pandit wrote: >> 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? I didn't say that, never ever. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]