[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180104182438.GA5642@amd>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 19:24:38 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
"tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com" <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"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>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel
Hi!
> ps: BTW^2 (and this is of course not about you, David) I'm disappointed
> that for "Spectre" there was no discussion between upstream developers,
> or between Linux vendors, or in fact hardly any discussion beyond "these
> are the patches". I understand that (unlike PTI) there was no back
> story to cover up the actual vulnerability, but... grow up, folks.
> Seriously, "these are the patches" won't fly with either upstream or
> distros.
I still hope that the discussion will now.... Or is someone still
under impression that embargo is in place?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists