[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201117212307.GR5719@zn.tnic>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:23:07 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
x86@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
thomas.lendacky@....com, jroedel@...e.de, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
jan.setjeeilers@...cle.com, junaids@...gle.com, oweisse@...gle.com,
rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, graf@...zon.de, mgross@...ux.intel.com,
kuzuno@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 00/21] x86/pti: Defer CR3 switch to C code
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 08:02:51PM +0100, Alexandre Chartre wrote:
> No. This prevents the guest VM from gathering data from the host
> kernel on the same cpu-thread. But there's no mitigation for a guest
> VM running on a cpu-thread attacking another cpu-thread (which can be
> running another guest VM or the host kernel) from the same cpu-core.
> You cannot use flush/clear barriers because the two cpu-threads are
> running in parallel.
Now there's your justification for why you're doing this. It took a
while...
The "why" should always be part of the 0th message to provide
reviewers/maintainers with answers to the question, what this pile of
patches is all about. Please always add this rationale to your patchset
in the future.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists