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.
