On 12/08/16 04:52, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 08:47 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem is if we don't do this it becomes possible for a guest to
>>> essentially cripple a device on the host by ju
On Mon, 2016-08-15 at 23:16 +, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
>
> Bugs in existing guests is an interesting case, but I have been focused on
> getting acceptable behavior from a properly functioning guest, in the face
> of hardware issues that can only be resolved in a single place.
>
> I agree th
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Filtering things to work around bugs in existing guests to avoid crashes
is a different kettle of fish and could be justified but keep in mind that
in most cases a malicious guest will be able to exploit those HW flaws.
Bugs in existing guests is an interesting c
On Tue, 2016-08-16 at 08:23 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > I don't think desktop users appreciate hangs any more than anyone else, and
> >
> > that is one of the symptoms that can arise here without the vfio
> > coordination.
>
> And can happen with it as well
Oh and your resp
On Mon, 2016-08-15 at 17:59 +, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> >
> > We may want some kind of "strict" vs. "relaxed" model here to
> > differenciate the desktop user wanting to give a function to his/her
> > windows partition and doesn't care about strict isolatio
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
We may want some kind of "strict" vs. "relaxed" model here to
differenciate the desktop user wanting to give a function to his/her
windows partition and doesn't care about strict isolation vs. the cloud
data center.
I don't think desktop users appreciate hangs an
On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 14:17 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> vfio isn't playing nanny here for the fun of it, part of the reason we
> have vpd access functions is because folks have discovered that vpd
> registers between PCI functions on multi-function devices may be
> shared. So pounding on vp
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:52:02 -0700
Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 08:47 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >>
> >> The problem is if we don't do this it becomes possible for a guest to
> >> essentially cripple a
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 08:47 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>
>> The problem is if we don't do this it becomes possible for a guest to
>> essentially cripple a device on the host by just accessing VPD
>> regions that aren't actually v
On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 08:47 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
> The problem is if we don't do this it becomes possible for a guest to
> essentially cripple a device on the host by just accessing VPD
> regions that aren't actually viable on many devices.
And ? We already can cripple the device in s
On 08/09/2016 08:12 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> On 10/02/16 08:04, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:25:34PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
PCI-2.2 VPD entries have a maximum size of 32k, but might actually
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:12 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>
>> The PCI spec is what essentially assumes that there is only one block.
>> If I am not mistaken in the case of this device the second block here
>> actually contains devic
On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:12 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
> The PCI spec is what essentially assumes that there is only one block.
> If I am not mistaken in the case of this device the second block here
> actually contains device configuration data, not actual VPD data. The
> issue here is that
> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 22:54 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> The cxgb3 driver is reading the second bit starting from 0xc00 but since
> the size is wrongly detected as 0x7c, VFIO blocks access beyond it and the
> guest driver fails to probe.
>
> I also cannot find a clause in the PCI 3.0 spe
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 10/02/16 08:04, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:25:34PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> PCI-2.2 VPD entries have a maximum size of 32k, but might actually
>>> be smaller than that. To figure out the actual size o
On 10/02/16 08:04, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:25:34PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> PCI-2.2 VPD entries have a maximum size of 32k, but might actually
>> be smaller than that. To figure out the actual size one has to read
>> the VPD area until the 'end marker' is reached.
On 02/09/2016 10:04 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:25:34PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> PCI-2.2 VPD entries have a maximum size of 32k, but might actually
>> be smaller than that. To figure out the actual size one has to read
>> the VPD area until the 'end marker' is reac
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:25:34PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> PCI-2.2 VPD entries have a maximum size of 32k, but might actually
> be smaller than that. To figure out the actual size one has to read
> the VPD area until the 'end marker' is reached.
> Trying to read VPD data beyond that marker
18 matches
Mail list logo
