linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/1] s390: virtio-ccw: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:25:59 +0200
From:   Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pasic@...ux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@...ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, mst@...hat.com,
        jasowang@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/1] s390: virtio-ccw: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device
 protection



On 2020-08-06 17:47, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu,  6 Aug 2020 16:23:01 +0200
...
> This does work, and I'm tempted to queue this patch, but I'm wondering
> whether we need to give up on a cross-architecture solution already
> (especially keeping in mind that ccw is the only transport that is
> really architecture-specific).
> 
> I know that we've gone through a few rounds already, and I'm not sure
> whether we've been there already, but:
> 
> Could virtio_finalize_features() call an optional
> arch_has_restricted_memory_access() function and do the enforcing of
> IOMMU_PLATFORM? That would catch all transports, and things should work
> once an architecture opts in. That direction also shouldn't be a
> problem if virtio is a module.

Yes thanks, I rework it in this direction.


-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen