[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6319916ba0f9d_5801629437@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 23:53:31 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, <x86@...nel.org>,
<nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>,
<peterz@...radead.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<dave.jiang@...el.com>, <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
<vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
<a.manzanares@...sung.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] memregion: Add arch_flush_memregion() interface
Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 09:52:17AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > To be clear nfit stuff and CXL does run in guests, but they do not
> > support secure-erase in a guest.
> >
> > However, the QEMU CXL enabling is building the ability to do *guest
> > physical* address space management, but in that case the driver can be
> > paravirtualized to realize that it is not managing host-physical address
> > space and does not need to flush caches. That will need some indicator
> > to differentiate virtual CXL memory expanders from assigned devices.
>
> Sounds to me like that check should be improved later to ask
> whether the kernel is managing host-physical address space, maybe
> arch_flush_memregion() should check whether the address it is supposed
> to flush is host-physical and exit early if not...
Even though I raised the possibility of guest passthrough of a CXL
memory expander, I do not think it could work in practice without it
being a gigantic security nightmare. So it is probably safe to just do
the hypervisor check and assume that there's no such thing as guest
management of host physical address space.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists