lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC v2 00/27] Kernel Address Space Isolation
Alexandre,

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, Alexandre Chartre wrote:
> On 7/12/19 9:48 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > As I said before, come up with a list of possible usage scenarios and
> > protection scopes first and please take all the ideas other people have
> > with this into account. This includes PTI of course.
> >
> > Once we have that we need to figure out whether these things can actually
> > coexist and do not contradict each other at the semantical level and
> > whether the outcome justifies the resulting complexity.
> >
> > After that we can talk about implementation details.
>
> Right, that makes perfect sense. I think so far we have the following
> scenarios:
>
> - PTI
> - KVM (i.e. VMExit handler isolation)
> - maybe some syscall isolation?

Vs. the latter you want to talk to Paul Turner. He had some ideas there.

> I will look at them in more details, in particular what particular
> mappings they need and when they need to switch mappings.
>
> And thanks for putting me back on the right track.

That's what maintainers are for :)

Thanks,

tglx

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-15 10:29    [W:0.076 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site