-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:55:35AM +0100, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-06-18 at 20:56 +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> > #1 is definitely better for latency, but also from architecture point of
> > view - ultimately it will allow
On Sun, 2017-06-18 at 20:56 +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> #1 is definitely better for latency, but also from architecture point of
> view - ultimately it will allow to get rid of one more thing out of dom0
> (either to dedicated AudioVM, or to GUI VM).
Thanks for the helpful
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 04:17:02PM +0100, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> I have a Bluetooth headset that I'd like to use with multiple VMs.
> Assigning the Bluetooth controller to each VM (at either the PCI or USB
> level) when I want to use that VM isn't
> If I copy the same pairing key to all of the VMs, then an
> attacker within Bluetooth range who had access to one VM could
> intercept the audio connection when I'm using the headset with a
> different VM.
If an attacker is within Bluetooth range he can probably use a
microphone and listen to
I have a Bluetooth headset that I'd like to use with multiple VMs.
Assigning the Bluetooth controller to each VM (at either the PCI or USB
level) when I want to use that VM isn't an ideal solution because each
VM needs a pairing key to secure the Bluetooth connection to the
headset. If I copy
