On 9/19/2023 3:32 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9:58 AM
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 2:55 PM Parav Pandit <pa...@nvidia.com> wrote:
From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan....@intel.com>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 12:19 PM
so admin vq based LM solution can be a side channel attacking
surface
It will be part of the DSM whenever it will be used in future.
Hence, it is not attack surface.
DSM is not a part of TVM. So it really depends on what kind of work did the
admin virtqueue do. For commands that can't be self-contained like
provisioning, it is fine, since it is done before the TDI assignment. But it not
necessarily for your migration proposal. It seems you've found another case
that self-containing is important:
allowing the owner to access the member after TDI is attached to TVM is a side
channel attack.
TVM and DSM specs will be extended in future when we get there, so core
hypervisor will not be involved.
With trap+mediation, it is involved.
Lingshan wanted to take this TDISP extension in future.
So are you both aligned or not yet?
I didn't say that, never ever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
