Hello Weidong,
The problem is most vendor's just don't fix it and ignore the problem
completely.
Most often hiding them selves behind: come back when it's a problem with
Microsoft Windows, that the only single thing we support (and no other
software, so no vmware, no xen, no linux, perhaps even no hypervisor)
Well I don't know if the virtual pc in windows 7 supports an iommu now, but it
didn't in the past as far as i know, so any complain bounces off, and there it
all seems to end for them.
Besides that i don't know if they do know what the problems with there
implementation in BIOS is when someone reports it.
I think some behind the scenes pressure from Intel to vendors might help to
solve some of them.
(my Q35 chipset, "Intel V-PRO" marketed motherboard (so much for that) also
suffers RMRR problem when another graphics card is inserted which switches off
the IGD).
Although i think in my case your patch will work around that for me. Perhaps a
third option is needed, which does all the workarounds possible and warns about
potential security problem when requested ?
--
Sander
Thursday, January 21, 2010, 1:46:39 PM, you wrote:
> Noboru Iwamatsu wrote:
>> Hi Weidong,
>>
>> I re-send the DRHD-fix patch.
>>
>> If DRHD does not have existent devices, ignore it.
>> If DRHD has both existent and non-existent devices, consider it invalid
>> and not register.
>>
> Although you patch workarounds your buggy BIOS, but we still need to
> enable it for security purpose as I mentioned in previous mail. We
> needn't workaround / fix all BIOS issues in software. I think security
> is more important for this specific BIOS issue. Did you report the BIOS
> issue to your OEM vendor? maybe it's better to get it fixed in BIOS.
> Regards,
> Weidong
>> According to this patch and yours, my machine successfully booted
>> with vt-d enabled.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Noboru Iwamatsu <n_iwamatsu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Keir Fraser wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/01/2010 10:19, "Weidong Han" <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry this is typo.
>>>>>> I mean:
>>>>>> So, I think RMRR that has no-existent device is "invalid"
>>>>>> and whole RMRR should be ignored.
>>>>>>
>>>>> looks reasonable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keir, I Acks Noboru's rmrr patch. Or do you want us to merge them to one
>>>>> patch?
>>>>>
>>>> Merge them up, re-send with both sign-off and acked-by all in one email.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Keir
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sorry, I disagree with Noboru after thinking it again. If the RMRR has
>>> both no-existent device and also has existent devices in its scope, we
>>> should not ignore it because the existent devices under its scope will
>>> be impacted without the RMRR. so I suggest to print a warning instead of
>>> ignore it. Attached a patch for it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Weidong Han <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>
>>
--
Best regards,
Sander mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home