[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1515083078.12987.164.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 16:24:38 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com" <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"tglx@...uxtronix.de" <tglx@...uxtronix.de>,
"riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
"keescook@...gle.com" <keescook@...gle.com>,
"gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk" <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"pjt@...gle.com" <pjt@...gle.com>,
"dave.hansen@...el.com" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"jikos@...nel.org" <jikos@...nel.org>,
"gregkh@...ux-foundation.org" <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Retpoline: Binary mitigation for branch-target-injection
(aka "Spectre")
On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 08:18 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I hate to say this, but I think Intel should postpone CET until the
> dust settles.
CET isn't a *problem* for retpoline. We've had a CET-compatible version
for a while now, and I posted it earlier. It's just that Andi was
working from an older version of my patches.
Of course, there's a school of thought that says that Intel should
postpone *everything* until this is all fixed sanely, but there's
nothing special about CET in that respect.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists