Re: Serious AMD-Vi(?) issue

[Elliott Mitchell <ehem+xen@xxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:22:51AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.05.2024 22:11, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:44:59AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >> Why do you mask the device SBDF in the above snippet?  I would really
> >> like to understand what's so privacy relevant in a PCI SBDF number.
> > 
> > I doubt it reveals much.  Simply seems unlikely to help debugging and
> > therefore I prefer to mask it.
> 
> SBDF in one place may be matchable against a memory address in another
> place. _Any_ hiding of information is hindering analysis. Please can
> you finally accept that it needs to be the person doing the analysis
> to judge what is or is not relevant to them?

Not going to happen as I'd accepted this long ago.  The usual approach
is all developers have PGP keys (needed for security issues anyway) and
you don't require all logs to be public.

I've noticed the core of the Xen project appears centered in the EU.  Yet
you're not catering to data privacy at all?  Or is this a service
exclusively provided to people who prove they're EU citizens?


-- 
(\___(\___(\______          --=> 8-) EHM <=--          ______/)___/)___/)
 \BS (    |         ehem+sigmsg@xxxxxxx  PGP 87145445         |    )   /
  \_CS\   |  _____  -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O-   _____  |   /  _/
8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445