[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180107184932.t3jcvwjj7y37xhb4@pd.tnic>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 19:49:32 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: David Lang <david@...g.hm>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
"Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Law <law@...hat.com>, Nick Clifton <nickc@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel
On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 09:21:44AM -0800, David Lang wrote:
> The point is that in many cases, if someone explits the "trusted" process,
> they already have everything that the machine is able to do anyway.
...and then we don't need the per-process complication anyway.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists