On 04/08/15 14:46, George Dunlap wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 14:54 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 03/08/15 14:35, Ben Catterall wrote:
Hi all,
I am working on an x86 proof-of-concept to evaluate if it is feasible
to move device models an
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 14:54 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 03/08/15 14:35, Ben Catterall wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I am working on an x86 proof-of-concept to evaluate if it is feasible
>> > to move device models and x86 emulation code fo
On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 15:34 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 14:54 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > I think it would be entirely reasonable to have a deadline for a single
> > execution of depriv mode, after which the domain is declared malicious
> > and killed.
>
> I think this
On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 14:54 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 03/08/15 14:35, Ben Catterall wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am working on an x86 proof-of-concept to evaluate if it is feasible
> > to move device models and x86 emulation code for HVM guests into a
> > de-privileged context.
> >
> > I w
On 03/08/15 14:35, Ben Catterall wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am working on an x86 proof-of-concept to evaluate if it is feasible
> to move device models and x86 emulation code for HVM guests into a
> de-privileged context.
>
> I was hoping to get feedback from relevant maintainers on scheduling
> consid
Hi all,
I am working on an x86 proof-of-concept to evaluate if it is feasible to
move device models and x86 emulation code for HVM guests into a
de-privileged context.
I was hoping to get feedback from relevant maintainers on scheduling
considerations for this system to mitigate potential Do
