[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180110100344.GZ29822@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:03:44 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch RFC 5/5] x86/speculation: Add basic speculation control
code
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:27:59AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > The only question I have is if retpoline works at all on SKL (with ucode
> > update); BDW needs the ucode update for retpoline to work because of the
> > RSB fallback.
>
> As I understand it, Skylake is never getting the IBRS_ATT (all the
> time) feature. That is for future CPUs only.
Ah, so then I got confused by your earlier email. So retpoline will work
on SKL, but it will, like BDW need the ucode update?
> I don't know why you're calling that 'IBRS=2'; are you getting confused
> by Andrea's distro horridness?
Yes, continuation of the nomenclature of that earlier thread.
Still, point remains, do we ever need that MSR fiddling dynamic IBRS
stuff now that we have retpolines? I would prefer to not have it if
there is no compelling reason for it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists