|
Message-ID: <1494343857.20270.23.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 11:30:57 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, "Fogh, Anders"
<anders.fogh@...ta-adan.de>, Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, kernel list
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, "clementine.maurice@...k.tugraz.at"
<clementine.maurice@...k.tugraz.at>, "moritz.lipp@...k.tugraz.at"
<moritz.lipp@...k.tugraz.at>, Michael Schwarz
<michael.schwarz@...k.tugraz.at>, Richard Fellner
<richard.fellner@...dent.tugraz.at>, "Kirill A. Shutemov"
<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC, PATCH] x86_64: KAISER - do not
mapkernel in user mode
On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 16:57 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 09.05.2017 um 16:44 schrieb Fogh, Anders:
> > > > i.e. how does it perform on recent AMD systems?
> >
> > Sorry for the latency. Recent AMD is reported by Enrique Nissem to
> > not
> > be vulnerable to the prefetch attack. TSX attack doesn't apply to
> > AMD.
> > Hund, Willems & Holz wrote in 2013 that AMD was vulnerable to that
> > attack. The BTB is almost surely working in a different manner of
> > fashion if at all. So AMD may or may not be vulnerable to the DPF
> > attack, but none of the modern attacks should work - at least out
> > of the
> > box.
>
> But the promoted patch will also run on AMD systems, that's why I
> asked
> for the overhead.
Well, if it is a compile time switch, and the
overhead is unacceptable on everything but the
very latest Intel chips, chances are the code
will not be enabled in any distribution kernel.
--
All rights reversed
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
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.