On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 04:41:37PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 05:22:38PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > The issue is it's a (potential) security hole, not a slowdown.
>
> How? Because the bounce buffers will be unencrypted and someone might
> intercept them?
Or
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 04:41:37PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 05:22:38PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > The issue is it's a (potential) security hole, not a slowdown.
>
> How? Because the bounce buffers will be unencrypted and someone might
> intercept them?
Or
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 05:22:38PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> The issue is it's a (potential) security hole, not a slowdown.
How? Because the bounce buffers will be unencrypted and someone might
intercept them?
> To disable unsecure things. If someone enables SEV one might have an
>
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 05:22:38PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> The issue is it's a (potential) security hole, not a slowdown.
How? Because the bounce buffers will be unencrypted and someone might
intercept them?
> To disable unsecure things. If someone enables SEV one might have an
>
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:38:59PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:29:35PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > Makes sense, but I think at least a dmesg warning here
> > > might be a good idea.
> >
> > Good idea. Should it be a warning when it is first being set up or
> >
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:38:59PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:29:35PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > Makes sense, but I think at least a dmesg warning here
> > > might be a good idea.
> >
> > Good idea. Should it be a warning when it is first being set up or
> >
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:29:35PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > Makes sense, but I think at least a dmesg warning here
> > might be a good idea.
>
> Good idea. Should it be a warning when it is first being set up or
> a warning the first time the bounce buffers need to be used. Or maybe
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:29:35PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > Makes sense, but I think at least a dmesg warning here
> > might be a good idea.
>
> Good idea. Should it be a warning when it is first being set up or
> a warning the first time the bounce buffers need to be used. Or maybe
>
On 11/15/2016 12:17 PM, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2016-11-15 11:02-0600, Tom Lendacky:
>> On 11/15/2016 8:39 AM, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>> 2016-11-09 18:37-0600, Tom Lendacky:
Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is
On 11/15/2016 12:17 PM, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2016-11-15 11:02-0600, Tom Lendacky:
>> On 11/15/2016 8:39 AM, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>> 2016-11-09 18:37-0600, Tom Lendacky:
Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:29:35PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 9:16 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:37:23PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> >> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
> >> memory encryption mask is set,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:29:35PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 9:16 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:37:23PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> >> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
> >> memory encryption mask is set,
On 11/15/2016 9:16 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:37:23PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
>> memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the
>> device performing the DMA does
On 11/15/2016 9:16 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:37:23PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
>> memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the
>> device performing the DMA does
2016-11-15 11:02-0600, Tom Lendacky:
> On 11/15/2016 8:39 AM, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> 2016-11-09 18:37-0600, Tom Lendacky:
>>> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
>>> memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the
>>> device performing
2016-11-15 11:02-0600, Tom Lendacky:
> On 11/15/2016 8:39 AM, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> 2016-11-09 18:37-0600, Tom Lendacky:
>>> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
>>> memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the
>>> device performing
On 11/15/2016 8:39 AM, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2016-11-09 18:37-0600, Tom Lendacky:
>> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
>> memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the
>> device performing the DMA does not support 48-bits. SWIOTLB
On 11/15/2016 8:39 AM, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2016-11-09 18:37-0600, Tom Lendacky:
>> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
>> memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the
>> device performing the DMA does not support 48-bits. SWIOTLB
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:37:23PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
> memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the
> device performing the DMA does not support 48-bits. SWIOTLB will be
> initialized to
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:37:23PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
> memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the
> device performing the DMA does not support 48-bits. SWIOTLB will be
> initialized to
2016-11-09 18:37-0600, Tom Lendacky:
> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
> memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the
> device performing the DMA does not support 48-bits. SWIOTLB will be
> initialized to create un-encrypted
2016-11-09 18:37-0600, Tom Lendacky:
> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
> memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the
> device performing the DMA does not support 48-bits. SWIOTLB will be
> initialized to create un-encrypted
Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the
device performing the DMA does not support 48-bits. SWIOTLB will be
initialized to create un-encrypted bounce buffers for use by these devices.
Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the
device performing the DMA does not support 48-bits. SWIOTLB will be
initialized to create un-encrypted bounce buffers for use by these devices.
24 matches
Mail list logo
