From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58148 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OTsnW-0006Ck-6l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:37:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OTsnU-0003Bm-Gx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:37:34 -0400 Received: from mail-vw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.212.45]:36473) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OTsnU-0003Bf-EO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:37:32 -0400 Received: by vws18 with SMTP id 18so724962vws.4 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 01:37:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100629172522.GA8227@localhost> References: <20100629172522.GA8227@localhost> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:37:31 +0100 Message-ID: From: Stefan Hajnoczi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Status update List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, joro@8bytes.org, paul@codesourcery.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu wrote: > On the other hand, we could just leave it alone for now. Changing > mappings during DMA is stupid anyway: I don't think the guest can > recover the results of DMA safely, even though it might be used on > transfers in progress you simply don't care about anymore. Paul Brook > suggested we could update the cpu_physical_memory_map() mappings > somehow, but I think that's kinda difficult to accomplish. A malicious or broken guest shouldn't be able to crash or corrupt QEMU process memory. The IOMMU can only map from bus addresses to guest physical RAM (?) so the worst the guest can do here is corrupt itself? Stefan