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

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:50 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/19 12:38 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Would that mean that with Meltdown affected CPUs we open speculation
> > attacks against the mmlocal memory from KVM user space?
>
> Not necessarily.  There would likely be a _set_ of local PGDs.  We could
> still have pair of PTI PGDs just like we do know, they'd just be a local
> PGD pair.
>

Unfortunately, this would mean that we need to sync twice as many
top-level entries when we context switch.