On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 02:39:10PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Weidong Han <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I implemented a patch and attached.
> > patch description:
> > In order to make Xen more defensive to VT-d related BIOS issue, this patch
> > ignores a DRHD if all devices under its scope are not pci discoverable, and
> > regards a DRHD as invalid and then disable whole VT-d if some devices under
> > its scope are not pci discoverable. But if iommu=force is set, it will
> > enable all DRHDs reported by BIOS, to avoid any security vulnerability with
> > malicious s/s re-enabling "supposed disabled" devices. Pls note that we
> > don't know the devices under the "Include_all" DRHD are existent or not,
> > because the scope of "Include_all" DRHD won't enumerate common pci device,
> > it only enumerates I/OxAPIC and HPET devices.
> Hi All,
> I have a system with what I consider to be a valid DRHD that's getting
> tripped up on this patch. The problem is that the DRHD includes an
> IOAPIC scope, where the IOAPIC is not materialized on the PCI bus. I
> think Xen is being overzealous in it's validity checking and that this
> is a valid configuration. What do others think? Are IOAPICs a
How does upstream Linux handle this?
> special case that we can allow to be non-existent on the PCI bus?
> Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel mailing list