[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <A542C98B-486C-4849-9DAC-2355F0F89A20@amacapital.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:27:04 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Marius Hillenbrand <mhillenb@...zon.de>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
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 Jun 12, 2019, at 12:55 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
Fair warning: Linus is on record as absolutely hating this idea. He might change his mind, but it’s an uphill battle.
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.
