Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "neessarily".
Did you mean:
necessarily
2020 Jun 29
1
[PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature
...ss to the guest's protected memory, even such device does not exist
> yet.
>
> At the moment such device exists we will need a driver for it, at least to
> enable the feature and apply policies, it is also one of the reasons why a
> hook to the architecture is interesting.
Not neessarily, it could also be fully transparent. See e.g.
recent AMD andvances allowing unmodified guests with SEV.
> > We are blocking this here, and it's hard to predict the future,
> > and a broken hypervisor can always find ways to crash the guest ...
>
> yes, this is also somethin...
2020 Jun 29
2
[PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:43:57PM +0200, Pierre Morel wrote:
> An architecture protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host
> access may want to enforce VIRTIO I/O device protection through the
> use of VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM.
> Let's give a chance to the architecture to accept or not devices
> without VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM.
I agree it's a bit misleading.
2020 Jun 29
2
[PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:43:57PM +0200, Pierre Morel wrote:
> An architecture protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host
> access may want to enforce VIRTIO I/O device protection through the
> use of VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM.
> Let's give a chance to the architecture to accept or not devices
> without VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM.
I agree it's a bit misleading.