[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?


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

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.