On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> >>> On 19.10.17 at 20:20, wrote:
> > Is there any document about the possible attack via the vPMU? The
> > document I found (such as [1] and XSA-163) just briefly say that the
> > vPMU should be
>>> On 19.10.17 at 20:20, wrote:
> Is there any document about the possible attack via the vPMU? The
> document I found (such as [1] and XSA-163) just briefly say that the
> vPMU should be disabled due to security concern.
Besides the other responses you've already got, I
On 19/10/17 19:24, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Meng Xu wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Cooper
>> wrote:
>>> On 19/10/17 16:09, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Meng Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Cooper
> wrote:
>>
>> On 19/10/17 16:09, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
>> > wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Cooper
wrote:
>
> On 19/10/17 16:09, Kyle Huey wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
> > wrote:
> >> On 10/10/2017 12:54 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:54
On 19/10/17 16:09, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
> wrote:
>> On 10/10/2017 12:54 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 12:54 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
>>> wrote:
On 10/10/2017 12:54 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
>> wrote:
> One thing I noticed is that the workaround doesn't appear to be
> complete: it is
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
> wrote:
>>
One thing I noticed is that the workaround doesn't appear to be
complete: it is only checking PMC0 status and not other
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
wrote:
>
>>> One thing I noticed is that the workaround doesn't appear to be
>>> complete: it is only checking PMC0 status and not other counters (fixed
>>> or architectural). Of course, without knowing what the actual
>> One thing I noticed is that the workaround doesn't appear to be
>> complete: it is only checking PMC0 status and not other counters (fixed
>> or architectural). Of course, without knowing what the actual problem
>> was it's hard to say whether this was intentional.
> handle_pmc_quirk appears
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Andrew Cooper
wrote:
> On 22/07/17 21:16, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> Last year I reported[0] seeing occasional instability in performance
>> counter values when running rr[1], which depends on completely
>> deterministic counts of retired
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
wrote:
> On 07/22/2017 04:16 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> Last year I reported[0] seeing occasional instability in performance
>> counter values when running rr[1], which depends on completely
>> deterministic counts of
On 22/07/17 21:16, Kyle Huey wrote:
> Last year I reported[0] seeing occasional instability in performance
> counter values when running rr[1], which depends on completely
> deterministic counts of retired conditional branches of userspace
> programs.
>
> I recently identified the cause of this
On 07/22/2017 04:16 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> Last year I reported[0] seeing occasional instability in performance
> counter values when running rr[1], which depends on completely
> deterministic counts of retired conditional branches of userspace
> programs.
>
> I recently identified the cause of
Last year I reported[0] seeing occasional instability in performance
counter values when running rr[1], which depends on completely
deterministic counts of retired conditional branches of userspace
programs.
I recently identified the cause of this problem. Xen's VPMU code
contains a workaround
16 matches
Mail list logo