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 08:54:36 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <>
To: Dave Hansen <>
Cc: Alexander Graf <>, Thomas Gleixner <>, 
	Marius Hillenbrand <>, kvm list <>, 
	LKML <>, 
	Kernel Hardening <>, Linux-MM <>, 
	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 Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:50 AM Dave Hansen <> wrote:
> 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.

Unfortunately, this would mean that we need to sync twice as many
top-level entries when we context switch.

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.