From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by 10.25.208.211 with SMTP id h202csp1895206lfg; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 04:15:01 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.156.138 with SMTP id c132mr37210428qhc.96.1457439301521; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 04:15:01 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org. [2001:4830:134:3::11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s51si2671605qge.104.2016.03.08.04.15.01 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Mar 2016 04:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org designates 2001:4830:134:3::11 as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:4830:134:3::11; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org designates 2001:4830:134:3::11 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:34017 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adGXV-0004k3-0W for alex.bennee@linaro.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 07:15:01 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34122) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adGXN-0004hV-L6 for qemu-arm@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 07:14:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adGXI-0006CV-Hf for qemu-arm@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 07:14:53 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37346) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adGXI-0006CQ-Bk; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 07:14:48 -0500 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 003A26540A; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 12:14:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.112.26] (ovpn-112-26.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.26]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u28CEijD007761 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 07:14:46 -0500 To: Ard Biesheuvel References: <1455288361-30117-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <56DD9C58.7050306@redhat.com> <56DEBF6A.6070809@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <56DEC234.70907@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:14:44 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.27 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Tue, 08 Mar 2016 12:14:48 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-arm , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , QEMU Developers , Markus Armbruster Subject: Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH 0/4] virt: provide secure-only RAM and first flash X-BeenThere: qemu-arm@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org X-TUID: SHpvYSLa7+Sh On 08/03/2016 13:13, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > As far as this QEMU port is concerned, having some flash in secure and > > some in non-secure is going to be useful regardless, and 64 MB is > > plenty for both the code and the data. So if users of the Trustzone > > port (which is disjoint from the KVM port in any case) can tolerate > > having the code and the variables in the same pflash file, I could > > simply move the code into the second flash, and we could reserve the > > first flash for secure (so it sits at physical address 0x0 > > Uhm, actually, the code is not even in the flash to begin with. So > having the second bank be non-secure only makes perfect sense imo Interesting, where is the code? Paolo