Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:55:58 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <>
To: Nadav Amit <>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <>, Alexander Graf <>,
 Thomas Gleixner <>, Marius Hillenbrand
 <>, kvm list <>,
 LKML <>,
 Kernel Hardening <>,
 Linux-MM <>, Alexander Graf <>,
 David Woodhouse <>,
 the arch/x86 maintainers <>,
 Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/10] Process-local memory allocations for hiding KVM

On 6/17/19 11:50 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> The idea is that you have a per-cpu address space.  Certain kernel
>> virtual addresses would map to different physical address based on where
>> you are running.  Each of the physical addresses would be "owned" by a
>> single CPU and would, by convention, never use a PGD that mapped an
>> address unless that CPU that "owned" it.
>> In that case, you never really invalidate those addresses.
> I understand, but as I see it, this is not related directly to PCIDs.

Yeah, the only link I was thinking of is that we can manage per-CPU PGDs
in the same way that we manage PCIDs.  Basically we can reuse a chunk of
the software concept.

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.