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

["Zhu, Lingshan" <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>]

On 9/19/2023 3:32 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > 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?
I didn't say that, never ever.