Re: [Xen-devel] Xen Security Advisory 154 (CVE-2016-2270) - x86: inconsistent cachability flags on guest mappings

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel