Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:55:38 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <>
To: Marius Hillenbrand <>,
Cc:,,, Alexander Graf <>,
 David Woodhouse <>,
 the arch/x86 maintainers <>, Andy Lutomirski
 <>, Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/10] Process-local memory allocations for hiding KVM

On 6/12/19 10:08 AM, Marius Hillenbrand wrote:
> This patch series proposes to introduce a region for what we call
> process-local memory into the kernel's virtual address space. 

It might be fun to cc some x86 folks on this series.  They might have
some relevant opinions. ;)

A few high-level questions:

Why go to all this trouble to hide guest state like registers if all the
guest data itself is still mapped?

Where's the context-switching code?  Did I just miss it?

We've discussed having per-cpu page tables where a given PGD is only in
use from one CPU at a time.  I *think* this scheme still works in such a
case, it just adds one more PGD entry that would have to context-switched.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.