[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180108162240.zw2oe43unfihehcg@pd.tnic>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:22:41 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: 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 11:10:38PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> I just want to be clear that the big drop some of us are facing is
> not an option *at all* for certain processes in certain environments
> and that we'll either continue to run with pti=off or with pti=on + a
> finer grained setting ASAP.
And that's all I'm saying: do pti=off in that case. The finer-grained
"solution" is just silly.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists