RE: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/5] virtio: introduce SUSPEND bit and vq state

[Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>]

> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9:58 AM
> 
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 2:55âPM Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 12:19 PM
> >
> >
> > > so admin vq based LM solution can be a side channel attacking
> > > surface
> > It will be part of the DSM whenever it will be used in future.
> > Hence, it is not attack surface.
> 
> DSM is not a part of TVM. So it really depends on what kind of work did the
> admin virtqueue do. For commands that can't be self-contained like
> provisioning, it is fine, since it is done before the TDI assignment. But it not
> necessarily for your migration proposal. It seems you've found another case
> that self-containing is important:
> allowing the owner to access the member after TDI is attached to TVM is a side
> channel attack.

TVM and DSM specs will be extended in future when we get there, so core hypervisor will not be involved.
With trap+mediation, it is involved.

Lingshan wanted to take this TDISP extension in future.
So are you both aligned or not yet?