On 16/11/06 5:11 am, "Herbert Xu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The only "harm" done to a host is that the process will take as much CPU
>> as it can get. This is really only a problem in Xen because the device
>> model is in Domain-0. Once the device model is in a different domain,
>> it doesn'
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:57:24AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
It isn't always system memory. Some DMA controllers deliberately write to
device FIFOs. There are also several devices which map areas of onboard RAM.
At minimum you need to make those to use RAM mappings rather than
On 15/11/06 11:12, "Herbert Xu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Could we add a recursion counter to the memory-access functions, and bail if
>> it reaches some limit?
>
> Yes that would work too. However, chips such as rtl8139 should never
> do MMIO in this case (the real hardware would never allo
On 15/11/06 2:58 am, "Herbert Xu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It isn't always system memory. Some DMA controllers deliberately write to
>> device FIFOs. There are also several devices which map areas of onboard RAM.
>> At minimum you need to make those to use RAM mappings rather than MMIO.
>
>
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 07:52:45AM +, Keir Fraser wrote:
>
> Each qemu 'stub domain' will be dedicated to a single guest. Adding a
You're right of course. Somehow I was thinking of having the physical
NIC in the qemu domain which obviously isn't the case.
> recursion counter to the memory a
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 01:03:34PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> >The scenario here is a compromised guest attempting to harm a host such
> >as Xen.
>
> The only "harm" done to a host is that the process will take as much CPU
> as it can get. This is really only a problem in Xen because the
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 03:02:02PM +, Paul Brook wrote:
> > However, chips such as rtl8139 should never
> > do MMIO in this case (the real hardware would never allow that to occur)
>
> Really? Why wouldn't it work on real hardware?
For rtl8139 it would cause a Master Abort.
Cheers,
--
Visit
> However, chips such as rtl8139 should never
> do MMIO in this case (the real hardware would never allow that to occur)
Really? Why wouldn't it work on real hardware?
Paul
___
Qemu-devel mailing list
Qemu-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mail
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 07:55:48AM +, Keir Fraser wrote:
>
> > I'm not suggesting that we change all existing users of cpu_physical_*
> > to a new interface that only accessed RAM. However, for cases where it
> > is obvious that only system RAM is intended (e.g., rtl8139), it makes
> > sense t
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:57:24AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
>
> It isn't always system memory. Some DMA controllers deliberately write to
> device FIFOs. There are also several devices which map areas of onboard RAM.
> At minimum you need to make those to use RAM mappings rather than MMIO.
I'm
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 00:43, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Hi:
>
> A number of qemu driver backends (such as rtl8139) call the function
> cpu_physical_memory_rw to read/write guest memory. The target guest
> memory address is often supplied by the guest. This opens up the
> possibility of a guest g
Hi:
A number of qemu driver backends (such as rtl8139) call the function
cpu_physical_memory_rw to read/write guest memory. The target guest
memory address is often supplied by the guest. This opens up the
possibility of a guest giving an address which happens to be an MMIO
address which can pot
12 matches
Mail list logo
