Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:50:35 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <>
To: Alexander Graf <>, Thomas Gleixner <>,
 Andy Lutomirski <>
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

On 6/17/19 12:38 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Yes I know, but as a benefit we could get rid of all the GSBASE
>> horrors in
>> the entry code as we could just put the percpu space into the local PGD.
> Would that mean that with Meltdown affected CPUs we open speculation
> attacks against the mmlocal memory from KVM user space?

Not necessarily.  There would likely be a _set_ of local PGDs.  We could
still have pair of PTI PGDs just like we do know, they'd just be a local
PGD pair.

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.