[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eecc856f-7f3f-ed11-3457-ea832351e963@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:55:38 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Marius Hillenbrand <mhillenb@...zon.de>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski
<luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/10] Process-local memory allocations for hiding KVM
secrets
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.
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.
