On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 01:49:22PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:44:58PM +0100, Martin Radev wrote: > > Your comment makes sense but then that would require the cooperation > > of these vendors and the cloud providers to agree on something meaningful. > > I am also not sure whether the end result would be better than hardening > > this interface to catch corruption. There is already some validation in > > unmap path anyway. > > So what? If you guys want to provide a new capability you'll have to do > work. And designing a new protocol based around the fact that the > hardware/hypervisor is not trusted and a copy is always required makes > a lot of more sense than throwing in band aids all over the place. If you don't trust the hypervisor, what would this capability be in? I suppose you mean this would need to be in the the guest kernel and this protocol would depend on .. not-hypervisor and most certainly not the virtio or any SR-IOV device. That removes a lot of options. The one sensibile one (since folks will trust OEM vendors like Intel or AMD to provide the memory encryption so they will also trust the IOMMU - I hope?) - and they do have plans for that with their IOMMU frameworks which will remove the need for SWIOTLB (I hope). But that is not now, but in future. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
