Am 14.06.2013 15:43, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 14/06/2013 05:44, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
>> Legacy 286 protected mode to real mode switching also happens through
>> the CPU reset PIN, so there certainly is a need to distinguish.
> That's a separate thing because devices aren't reset at all---n
Only on a real 286. At least since 486 the legacy switch has been INIT, not
RESET.
Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
>Am 14.06.2013 um 08:56 schrieb Christian Borntraeger
>:
>
>> On 13/06/13 13:56, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> Markus Armbruster writes:
>>>
Peter Lieven writes:
> On 13.
Il 14/06/2013 05:44, Alexander Graf ha scritto:
> Legacy 286 protected mode to real mode switching also happens through
> the CPU reset PIN, so there certainly is a need to distinguish.
That's a separate thing because devices aren't reset at all---not just
memory.
I have pending patches for that,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:46:39AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
> On 13.06.2013 10:40, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:09:09AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
> >>I was thinking if it would be a good idea to zeroize all memory resources
> >>on system reset and
> >>madvise dontneed th
Am 14.06.2013 um 08:56 schrieb Christian Borntraeger :
> On 13/06/13 13:56, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Markus Armbruster writes:
>>
>>> Peter Lieven writes:
>>>
On 13.06.2013 10:40, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:09:09AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
>> I was th
On 13/06/13 13:56, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Markus Armbruster writes:
>
>> Peter Lieven writes:
>>
>>> On 13.06.2013 10:40, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:09:09AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
> I was thinking if it would be a good idea to zeroize all memory
> resour
Am 13.06.2013 um 17:51 schrieb Markus Armbruster :
> Peter Lieven writes:
>
>> On 13.06.2013 12:55, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Peter Lieven writes:
>>>
On 13.06.2013 10:40, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:09:09AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
>> I was thinking
Peter Lieven writes:
> On 13.06.2013 12:55, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Peter Lieven writes:
>>
>>> On 13.06.2013 10:40, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:09:09AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
> I was thinking if it would be a good idea to zeroize all memory
> resources
On 13.06.2013 12:55, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Peter Lieven writes:
On 13.06.2013 10:40, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:09:09AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
I was thinking if it would be a good idea to zeroize all memory
resources on system reset and
madvise dontneed them aft
Il 13/06/2013 07:56, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
> Markus Armbruster writes:
>
>> Peter Lieven writes:
>>
>>> On 13.06.2013 10:40, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:09:09AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
> I was thinking if it would be a good idea to zeroize all memory
>
Markus Armbruster writes:
> Peter Lieven writes:
>
>> On 13.06.2013 10:40, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:09:09AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
I was thinking if it would be a good idea to zeroize all memory
resources on system reset and
madvise dontneed them a
Peter Lieven writes:
> On 13.06.2013 10:40, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:09:09AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
>>> I was thinking if it would be a good idea to zeroize all memory
>>> resources on system reset and
>>> madvise dontneed them afterwards. This would avoid system r
On 13.06.2013 11:22, Andreas Färber wrote:
Hi,
Am 13.06.2013 08:09, schrieb Peter Lieven:
I was thinking if it would be a good idea to zeroize all memory
resources on system reset and
madvise dontneed them afterwards.
The current way of not zeroing memory has led to discovery of some
firmware
Hi,
Am 13.06.2013 08:09, schrieb Peter Lieven:
> I was thinking if it would be a good idea to zeroize all memory
> resources on system reset and
> madvise dontneed them afterwards.
The current way of not zeroing memory has led to discovery of some
firmware bugs that we wouldn't have found if QEMU
On 13.06.2013 10:40, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:09:09AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
I was thinking if it would be a good idea to zeroize all memory resources on
system reset and
madvise dontneed them afterwards. This would avoid system reset attacks in case
the attacker
h
On 13.06.2013 10:40, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:09:09AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
I was thinking if it would be a good idea to zeroize all memory resources on
system reset and
madvise dontneed them afterwards. This would avoid system reset attacks in case
the attacker
h
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:09:09AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
> I was thinking if it would be a good idea to zeroize all memory resources on
> system reset and
> madvise dontneed them afterwards. This would avoid system reset attacks in
> case the attacker
> has only access to the console of a vS
Hi,
I was thinking if it would be a good idea to zeroize all memory resources on
system reset and
madvise dontneed them afterwards. This would avoid system reset attacks in case
the attacker
has only access to the console of a vServer but not on the physical host and it
would shrink
RSS size o
18 matches
Mail list logo
