[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] Xen Security Advisory 154 (CVE-2016-2270) - x86: inconsistent cachability flags on guest mappings
On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 07:21 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > > Well, in the context of this XSA we've asked both of them, and iirc > we've got a vague reply from Intel and none from AMD. In fact we > did defer the XSA for quite a bit waiting for any useful feedback. > To AMD's advantage I'd like to add though that iirc they're a little > more clear in their PM about the specific question of UC and WC > you raise: They group the various cacheabilities into two groups > (cacheable and uncacheable) and require there to only not be > any mixture between groups. Iirc Intel's somewhat vague reply > allowed us to conclude we're likely safe that way on their side too. It would be good to get a definitive answer from Intel, to match AMD's. That's basically why I added hpa to CC, in fact. Peter, is there any possibility of a clarification here, please? Thanks.
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our