kernel-hardening - Re: [RFC 00/10] Process-local memory allocations for hiding KVM secrets

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1906170026370.1760@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 00:28:27 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, 
    Marius Hillenbrand <mhillenb@...zon.de>, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, 
    LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
    Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, 
    Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.de>, 
    David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, 
    the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, 
    Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/10] Process-local memory allocations for hiding KVM
 secrets

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:21 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >
> > > Fair warning: Linus is on record as absolutely hating this idea. He might
> > > change his mind, but it’s an uphill battle.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
> I have personally suggested this to Linus on a couple of occasions,
> and he seemed quite skeptical.

The only way to find out is the good old: numbers talk ....

So someone has to bite the bullet, implement it and figure out whether it's
bollocks or not. :)

Thanks,

	tglx

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.