On 2024-05-13 13:36-0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Hmm, a slightly crazy idea (ok, maybe wildly crazy) would be to support
> mapping
> all of guest_memfd into kernel address space, but as USER=1 mappings. I.e.
> don't
> require a carve-out from userspace, but do require CLAC/STAC when
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:22:50 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024, James Gowans wrote:
> > We are also aware of ongoing work on guest_memfd. The current
> > implementation unmaps guest memory from VMM address space, but leaves it
> > in the kernel’s direct map. We’re not looking
On 2024-03-08 10:36-0700, David Matlack wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 8:25 AM Brendan Jackman wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 16:50, Gowans, James wrote:
> > > Our goal is to more completely address the class of issues whose leak
> > > origin is categorized as "Mapped memory" [1].
> >
> > Did
On 2024-03-08 at 10:46-0700, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-03-08 at 09:35 -0800, David Matlack wrote:
> > I think what James is looking for (and what we are also interested
> > in), is _eliminating_ the ability to access guest memory from the
> > direct map entirely. And in general,
