> On 23 Sep 2020, at 12:17, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23/09/2020 11:50, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> Hi,
>>> On 23 Sep 2020, at 09:28, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Julien Grall <jgr...@amazon.com>
>>>
>>> SMMUv{1, 2} are both marked as security supported, so we would
>>> technically have to issue an XSA for any IOMMU security bug.
>>>
>>> However, at the moment, device passthrough is not security supported
>>> on Arm and there is no plan to change that in the next few months.
>>>
>>> Therefore, mark Arm SMMUv{1, 2} as supported but not security supported.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <jgr...@amazon.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marq...@arm.com>
>
> Thanks!
>
>> We will publish in the next week a first implementation of SMMUv3 support
>> which might make sense to have fully Supported.
>
> I am not sure whether you include security supported in your "fully supported"
If we something is missing we will be happy to fix it to reach this goal.
>
> However, I would consider to follow the same model as we did with the IPMMU.
> The driver would first be marked as a technical preview to allow more testing
> in the community.
I was not meaning to have this at the very beginning.
More that it make more sense in general to have SMMUv3 with 2 level of page
table supporting this then old SMMU versions.
Cheers
Bertrand
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Julien Grall
