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 13:27:04 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <>
To: Dave Hansen <>
Cc: Marius Hillenbrand <>,,,,, Alexander Graf <>,
 David Woodhouse <>,
 the arch/x86 maintainers <>,
 Andy Lutomirski <>, Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/10] Process-local memory allocations for hiding KVM secrets

> On Jun 12, 2019, at 12:55 PM, Dave Hansen <> wrote:
>> 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.

Fair warning: Linus is on record as absolutely hating this idea. He might change his mind, but it’s an uphill battle.

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.