[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180104001501.3jof7zkrfkehnd3r@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:15:01 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
dwmw@...zon.co.uk, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel
> It should be a CPU_BUG bit as we have for the other mess. And that can be
> used for patching.
It has to be done at compile time because it requires a compiler option.
Most of the indirect calls are in C code.
So it cannot just patched in, only partially out.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists