[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d755ebf7-c5ce-02a0-3f49-3910a5263e18@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 16:32:47 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
"pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
"andrew.cooper3@...rix.com" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com" <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"aarcange@...hat.com" <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk" <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"dave.hansen@...el.com" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"gregkh@...ux-foundation.org" <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel
On 04/01/2018 16:29, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> Adding that for KVM is in the Linux IBRS patch set that I've seen.
> Didn't we already have a conversation about how the Linux patch set
> does it as an atomically-switched MSR while you've done it manually in
> Xen because it's faster?
I'm also doing it manually in the RHEL versions of the KVM patches, for
what it's worth.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists