On 01/27/2014 11:01 PM, Ren Qiaowei wrote:
>
> Yes. Though all non-MPX threads are slowed down, the whole process
> benefit from MPX.
>
> Anyway, HPA suggest these syscalls, which use MMU notifier, should be
> not needed, we can do what they do in userspace runtime. What do you
> think about it?
On 01/28/2014 02:42 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ren Qiaowei wrote:
MPX kernel code, namely this patchset, has mainly the 2
responsibilities: provide handlers for bounds faults (#BR), and
manage bounds memory.
AFAICS the kernel side implementation causes no runtime overhead
for non-MPX workload
* Ren Qiaowei wrote:
> >> MPX kernel code, namely this patchset, has mainly the 2
> >> responsibilities: provide handlers for bounds faults (#BR), and
> >> manage bounds memory.
> >
> > AFAICS the kernel side implementation causes no runtime overhead
> > for non-MPX workloads, and also causes
On 01/26/2014 04:19 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Qiaowei Ren wrote:
This patchset adds support for the Memory Protection Extensions
(MPX) feature found in future Intel processors.
MPX can be used in conjunction with compiler changes to check memory
references, for those references whose compile-
* Qiaowei Ren wrote:
> This patchset adds support for the Memory Protection Extensions
> (MPX) feature found in future Intel processors.
>
> MPX can be used in conjunction with compiler changes to check memory
> references, for those references whose compile-time normal intentions
> are usurped
This patchset adds support for the Memory Protection Extensions
(MPX) feature found in future Intel processors.
MPX can be used in conjunction with compiler changes to check memory
references, for those references whose compile-time normal intentions
are usurped at runtime due to buffer overflow o
6 matches
Mail list logo
