On 12/18/20 3:18 PM, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> The addresses in the SIE control block of the host should not be
> forwarded to the guest. They are only meaningful to the host, and
> moreover it would be a clear security issue.
>
> Subsequent patches will actually put the right values in the guest
>> In that case, it's pretty much a random number (of a random page used
>> as a leave page table) and does not let g1 identify locations of
>> symbols etc. If so, I don't think this is a "clear security issue"
>> and suggest squashing this into the actual fix (#p4 I assume).
>
> yeah __maybe__ I
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 10:44:56 +0100
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 18.12.20 15:18, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> > The addresses in the SIE control block of the host should not be
> > forwarded to the guest. They are only meaningful to the host, and
> > moreover it would be a clear security issue.
>
On 18.12.20 15:18, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> The addresses in the SIE control block of the host should not be
> forwarded to the guest. They are only meaningful to the host, and
> moreover it would be a clear security issue.
It's really almost impossible for someone without access to
documentation
The addresses in the SIE control block of the host should not be
forwarded to the guest. They are only meaningful to the host, and
moreover it would be a clear security issue.
Subsequent patches will actually put the right values in the guest SIE
control block.
Fixes: a3508fbe9dc6d ("KVM: s390: v
5 matches
Mail list logo