[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190712190620.GX3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 21:06:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
rkrcmar@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, jan.setjeeilers@...cle.com,
liran.alon@...cle.com, jwadams@...gle.com, graf@...zon.de,
rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 00/27] Kernel Address Space Isolation
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 06:37:47PM +0200, Alexandre Chartre wrote:
> On 7/12/19 5:16 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Right. If we decide to expose more parts of the kernel mappings then that's
> > just adding more stuff to the existing user (PTI) map mechanics.
>
> If we expose more parts of the kernel mapping by adding them to the existing
> user (PTI) map, then we only control the mapping of kernel sensitive data but
> we don't control user mapping (with ASI, we exclude all user mappings).
>
> How would you control the mapping of userland sensitive data and exclude them
> from the user map? Would you have the application explicitly identify sensitive
> data (like Andy suggested with a /dev/xpfo device)?
To what purpose do you want to exclude userspace from the kernel
mapping; that is, what are you mitigating against with that?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists