Hi Jean,
On 1/29/24 18:42, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 03:07:41PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
>> Hi Jean-Philippe,
>>
>> On 1/29/24 13:23, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 07:15:54PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
In [1] and [2] we at
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 03:07:41PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
> Hi Jean-Philippe,
>
> On 1/29/24 13:23, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 07:15:54PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
> >> In [1] and [2] we attempted to fix a case where a VFIO-PCI device
> >> protected
Hi Jean-Philippe,
On 1/29/24 13:23, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 07:15:54PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
>> In [1] and [2] we attempted to fix a case where a VFIO-PCI device
>> protected with a virtio-iommu is assigned to an x86 guest. On x86
>> the physical IOMM
Hi Eric,
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 07:15:54PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
> In [1] and [2] we attempted to fix a case where a VFIO-PCI device
> protected with a virtio-iommu is assigned to an x86 guest. On x86
> the physical IOMMU may have an address width (gaw) of 39 or 48 bits
> whereas the virtio-io
In [1] and [2] we attempted to fix a case where a VFIO-PCI device
protected with a virtio-iommu is assigned to an x86 guest. On x86
the physical IOMMU may have an address width (gaw) of 39 or 48 bits
whereas the virtio-iommu exposes a 64b input address space by default.
Hence the guest may try to u
