From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christian Tramnitz <chris.ace@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VT-d: improve RMRR validity checking
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:57:25 +0100
Message-ID: <hjk80f$3ph$2@ger.gmane.org>
References: <529654491.20100125114528@eikelenboom.it>
	<C7835076.74F1%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <C7835076.74F1%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

How about a new config option "vtd=enforce" (if you think of selinux you 
know where that comes from) for the most secure "panic on deviations" to 
keep "force" working even with buggy BIOSes (which seem to be the 
majority right now) and to avoid problems for folks currently using 
"force" with something else in mind rather than their systems panicing 
after installing a broken BIOS...

I'd also love to see some initiative from Intel to actually make vendors 
offer proper BIOSes to support the technology they are advertising (and 
with advertising I do not mean vt-d specifically but advertising a 
chipset and at the same time Intel saying vt-d is supported on this 
chipset).


best regards,
    Christian