linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86/mtrr, pat: make PAT independent from MTRR

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20190809070647.GA2152@zn.tnic>
Date:   Fri, 9 Aug 2019 09:06:47 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, toshi.kani@....com,
        fei1.li@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86/mtrr, pat: make PAT independent from MTRR

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 08:54:17PM -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> Make PAT(Page Attribute Table) independent from
> MTRR(Memory Type Range Register).
> Some environments (mainly virtual ones) support only PAT, but not MTRR
> because PAT replaces MTRR.
> It's tricky and no gain to support both MTRR and PAT except compatibility.
> So some VM technologies don't support MTRR, but only PAT.
> This patch series makes PAT available on such environments without MTRR.

And this "justification" is not even trying. Which "VM technologies" are
those? Why do we care? What's the impact? Why do we want this?

You need to sell this properly.

Also, your patches are huge. You'd need to split them sensibly.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.