On 29/08/17 12:58, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 21/08/17 12:47, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> Ok, people did talk, exchanged ideas, lovely :) What happens now? Do I
>> repost this or go back to PCI bus flags or something else? Thanks.
>
>
> Anyone, any help? How do we proceed wi
On 21/08/17 12:47, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Ok, people did talk, exchanged ideas, lovely :) What happens now? Do I
> repost this or go back to PCI bus flags or something else? Thanks.
Anyone, any help? How do we proceed with this? Thanks.
>
>
>
> On 14/08/17 19:45, Alexey K
Folks,
Ok, people did talk, exchanged ideas, lovely :) What happens now? Do I
repost this or go back to PCI bus flags or something else? Thanks.
On 14/08/17 19:45, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Is there anything to change besides those compiler errors and David's
> comment in 5/5? O
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:56:35 +
David Laight wrote:
> From: Alex Williamson
> > Sent: 16 August 2017 17:56
> ...
> > Firmware pissing match... Processors running with 8k or less page size
> > fall within the recommendations of the PCI spec for register alignment
> > of MMIO regions of the d
From: Alex Williamson
> Sent: 16 August 2017 17:56
...
> Firmware pissing match... Processors running with 8k or less page size
> fall within the recommendations of the PCI spec for register alignment
> of MMIO regions of the device and this whole problem becomes less of an
> issue.
Actually if q
On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 10:56 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> > WTF Alex, can you stop once and for all with all that "POWER is
> > not standard" bullshit please ? It's completely wrong.
>
> As you've stated, the MSI-X vector table on POWER is currently updated
> via a hypercall. POWER is o
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:35:49 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 10:37 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > Of course I don't think either of those are worth imposing a
> > performance penalty where we don't otherwise need one. However, if we
> > look at a VM scenario where
On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 10:37 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Of course I don't think either of those are worth imposing a
> performance penalty where we don't otherwise need one. However, if we
> look at a VM scenario where the guest is following the PCI standard for
> programming MSI-X interrupts
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:12:33 +0100
Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 14/08/17 10:45, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > Is there anything to change besides those compiler errors and David's
> > comment in 5/5? Or the while patchset is too bad? Thanks.
>
> While I now understand it's not th
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> Sent: 15 August 2017 02:34
> On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 09:16 +0800, Jike Song wrote:
> > > Taking a step back, though, why does vfio-pci perform this check in the
> > > first place? If a malicious guest already has control of a device, any
> > > kind of interrupt spoofing
On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 14:12 +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On the other hand, if the check is not so much to mitigate malicious
> guests attacking the system as to prevent dumb guests breaking
> themselves (e.g. if some or all of the MSI-X capability is actually
> emulated), then allowing things to s
On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 09:47 +0800, Jike Song wrote:
> On 08/15/2017 09:33 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 09:16 +0800, Jike Song wrote:
> > > > Taking a step back, though, why does vfio-pci perform this check in the
> > > > first place? If a malicious guest already has c
On 08/15/2017 09:33 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 09:16 +0800, Jike Song wrote:
>>> Taking a step back, though, why does vfio-pci perform this check in the
>>> first place? If a malicious guest already has control of a device, any
>>> kind of interrupt spoofing it could
On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 09:16 +0800, Jike Song wrote:
> > Taking a step back, though, why does vfio-pci perform this check in the
> > first place? If a malicious guest already has control of a device, any
> > kind of interrupt spoofing it could do by fiddling with the MSI-X
> > message address/data i
On 08/14/2017 09:12 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 14/08/17 10:45, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> Is there anything to change besides those compiler errors and David's
>> comment in 5/5? Or the while patchset is too bad? Thanks.
>
> While I now understand it's not the low-level thing I
On 14/08/17 10:45, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Is there anything to change besides those compiler errors and David's
> comment in 5/5? Or the while patchset is too bad? Thanks.
While I now understand it's not the low-level thing I first thought it
was, so my reasoning has changed, pe
Folks,
Is there anything to change besides those compiler errors and David's
comment in 5/5? Or the while patchset is too bad? Thanks.
On 07/08/17 17:25, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> This is a followup for "[PATCH kernel v4 0/6] vfio-pci: Add support for
> mmapping MSI-X table"
> http://www.s
17 matches
Mail list logo