From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7040BC2D0A8 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:17:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15DBB205F4 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:17:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=xen.org header.i=@xen.org header.b="jPg9NhgK" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 15DBB205F4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=xen.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kL2mH-0004wu-8r; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:17:37 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kL2mF-0004wp-Np for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:17:35 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: deb1f2ff-5d67-46ca-9e39-1863d028a88d Received: from mail.xenproject.org (unknown [104.130.215.37]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id deb1f2ff-5d67-46ca-9e39-1863d028a88d; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:17:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xen.org; s=20200302mail; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject; bh=gyzusQ892ae2saBCoPdnHHzEGuSl73uRrJAuYOXohMs=; b=jPg9NhgKspzNt67Q4+uODFzg7l eCRwkk8FjKFXaFxgCVkRSfgsN4vcemauv3CsEoJNVNXjG0CaWN9mFTlK2JBuV1KRQWp+p5Fu2KNLB y681wqGcCS91q7ZHV8XnCvhACm6yxgLxG3DSj01wjOryoKF9M8Vr9g2/wHPT8M0cEiEU=; Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kL2mA-0008SB-EU; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:17:30 +0000 Received: from [54.239.6.187] (helo=a483e7b01a66.ant.amazon.com) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kL2mA-0003Ot-4i; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:17:30 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUPPORT.MD: Clarify the support state for the Arm SMMUv{1, 2} drivers To: Bertrand Marquis Cc: "open list:X86" , Julien Grall , Andrew Cooper , George Dunlap , Ian Jackson , Jan Beulich , Stefano Stabellini , Wei Liu References: <20200923082832.20038-1-julien@xen.org> <1D6392F2-F4EC-4025-A793-22EABF85AA0E@arm.com> From: Julien Grall Message-ID: <3c64f36f-6b43-6f73-e344-70b084f1f505@xen.org> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 12:17:27 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1D6392F2-F4EC-4025-A793-22EABF85AA0E@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On 23/09/2020 11:50, Bertrand Marquis wrote: > Hi, > >> On 23 Sep 2020, at 09:28, Julien Grall wrote: >> >> From: Julien Grall >> >> 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 > > Reviewed-by: Bertrand Marquis 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" 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. Cheers, -- Julien Grall