[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3cd533c1-3f18-a84f-fbb2-264751ed3eeb@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:41:50 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
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 6/12/19 1:27 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> 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.
Just to be clear, are you referring to the per-cpu PGDs, or to this
patch set with a per-mm kernel area?
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.
