[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87shbkx4fq.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 06:25:29 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] IBRS patch series
* Linus Torvalds:
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Speculation on Skylake and later requires these patches ("dynamic IBRS")
>> be used instead of retpoline[1].
>
> Can somebody explain this part?
>
> I was assuming that retpoline would work around this issue on all uarchs.
>
> This seems to say "retpoline does nothing on Skylake+"
Retpoline also looks incompatible with CET, so future Intel CPUs will
eventually need a different approach anyway.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists