[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200710154807.GA7292@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:48:07 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Giovanni Cabiddu <giovanni.cabiddu@...el.com>
Cc: alex.williamson@...hat.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
cohuck@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, vdronov@...hat.com,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, mark.a.chambers@...el.com,
gordon.mcfadden@...el.com, ahsan.atta@...el.com,
qat-linux@...el.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] vfio/pci: add blocklist and disable qat
On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 01:42:09PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 12:02:57PM +0100, Giovanni Cabiddu wrote:
> > This patchset defines a blocklist of devices in the vfio-pci module and adds
> > the current generation of Intel(R) QuickAssist devices to it as they are
> > not designed to run in an untrusted environment.
>
> How can they not be safe? If any device is not safe to assign the
> whole vfio concept has major issues that we need to fix for real instead
> of coming up with quirk lists for specific IDs.
No answer yet: how is this device able to bypass the IOMMU? Don't
we have a fundamental model flaw if a random device can bypass the
IOMMU protection? Except for an ATS bug I can't really think of a way
how a device could bypass the IOMMU, and in that case we should just
disable ATS.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists