[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <303ace66-950c-955d-d750-74de5054788a@siemens.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:55:56 +0200
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...eaurora.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, tsoni@...eaurora.org,
virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
jasowang@...hat.com, christoffer.dall@....com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, alex.bennee@...aro.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, stefano.stabellini@...inx.com,
will@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pratikp@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH 5/5] virtio: Add bounce DMA ops
On 29.04.20 12:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 12:26:43PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 29.04.20 12:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 03:39:53PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>>>> That would still not work I think where swiotlb is used for pass-thr devices
>>>> (when private memory is fine) as well as virtio devices (when shared memory is
>>>> required).
>>>
>>> So that is a separate question. When there are multiple untrusted
>>> devices, at the moment it looks like a single bounce buffer is used.
>>>
>>> Which to me seems like a security problem, I think we should protect
>>> untrusted devices from each other.
>>>
>>
>> Definitely. That's the model we have for ivshmem-virtio as well.
>>
>> Jan
>
> Want to try implementing that?
>
The desire is definitely there, currently "just" not the time.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
Powered by blists - more mailing lists