>>> On 01.10.18 at 16:28, wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 14:54 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> Right, the whole point of idle loop scrubbing is that you *don't*
>> syncronously wait for *all* the memory to finish scrubbing before you
>> can use part of it. So why is this an issue for you guys -- w
>>> On 01.10.18 at 16:40, wrote:
> On 01/10/18 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wrote:
>>> After this patch, alloc_heap_pages() is guaranteed to return scrubbed
>>> pages to a caller unless MEMF_no_scrub flag was provided.
>>
>> I also don't understand the point of this: Xen
>>> On 01.10.18 at 16:11, wrote:
> I think this is the main argument here: what to do about those security
> sensitive use cases? Scrubbing everything unconditionally might be a too
> radical approach. Would inroducing a new cmdline param be appropriate?
Yes, I'm surely fine with this being an op
On 01/10/18 14:57, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 10/1/18 9:50 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 10/01/2018 02:44 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 10/1/18 9:12 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 01/10/18 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wrote:
>> Having the allocator return un
On 01/10/18 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wrote:
>> Having the allocator return unscrubbed pages is a potential security
>> concern: some domain can be given pages with memory contents of another
>> domain. This may happen, for example, if a domain voluntarily releases
>> it
On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 14:54 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/01/2018 02:44 PM, Sergey Dyasli wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 07:38 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 01.10.18 at 15:12, wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 01/10/18 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wr
On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 07:38 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 01.10.18 at 15:12, wrote:
> >
> > On 01/10/18 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Having the allocator return unscrubbed pages is a potential security
> > > > concern: some domain can
On 10/1/18 9:50 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/01/2018 02:44 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 10/1/18 9:12 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 01/10/18 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wrote:
> Having the allocator return unscrubbed pages is a potential security
> conc
On 01/10/18 14:50, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/01/2018 02:44 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 10/1/18 9:12 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 01/10/18 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wrote:
> Having the allocator return unscrubbed pages is a potential security
> conce
On 10/01/2018 02:44 PM, Sergey Dyasli wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 07:38 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.10.18 at 15:12, wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/10/18 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wrote:
>
> Having the allocator return unscrubbed pages is a potential securi
On 10/01/2018 02:44 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 10/1/18 9:12 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 01/10/18 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wrote:
Having the allocator return unscrubbed pages is a potential security
concern: some domain can be given pages with memory
On 10/1/18 9:12 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 01/10/18 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wrote:
>>> Having the allocator return unscrubbed pages is a potential security
>>> concern: some domain can be given pages with memory contents of another
>>> domain. This may happen, for
On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 07:38 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 01.10.18 at 15:12, wrote:
> >
> > On 01/10/18 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Having the allocator return unscrubbed pages is a potential security
> > > > concern: some domain can
>>> On 01.10.18 at 15:12, wrote:
> On 01/10/18 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wrote:
>>> Having the allocator return unscrubbed pages is a potential security
>>> concern: some domain can be given pages with memory contents of another
>>> domain. This may happen, for example
On 10/01/2018 02:12 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 01/10/18 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wrote:
>>> Having the allocator return unscrubbed pages is a potential security
>>> concern: some domain can be given pages with memory contents of another
>>> domain. This may happen,
On 01/10/18 12:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wrote:
>> Having the allocator return unscrubbed pages is a potential security
>> concern: some domain can be given pages with memory contents of another
>> domain. This may happen, for example, if a domain voluntarily releases
>> it
>>> On 01.10.18 at 11:58, wrote:
> Having the allocator return unscrubbed pages is a potential security
> concern: some domain can be given pages with memory contents of another
> domain. This may happen, for example, if a domain voluntarily releases
> its own memory (ballooning being the easiest
Hi,
On 10/01/2018 10:58 AM, Sergey Dyasli wrote:
Having the allocator return unscrubbed pages is a potential security
concern: some domain can be given pages with memory contents of another
domain. This may happen, for example, if a domain voluntarily releases
its own memory (ballooning being th
18 matches
Mail list logo
