[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0575AF4FD06DD142AD198903C74E1CC87A57235B@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:51:31 +0000
From: "Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
CC: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
"Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [patch RFC 5/5] x86/speculation: Add basic speculation control
code
> So here is the simple list of questions all to be answered with YES or
> NO. I don't want to see any of the 'but, though ...'. We all know by now
> that it's CPU dependent and slow and whatever and that IBRS_ATT will be in
> future CPUs. So get your act together and tell a clear YES or NO.
I will answer for current cpus, so those not having IBRS_ATT
>
> 1) Does IBRS=1 when set once act as a set-and-forget option ?
NO
> 1a) If the answer to #1 is yes, is it more secure than toggling it?
NO
>
> 1b) If the answer to #1 is yes, is retpoline required ?
NO - Once you have IBRS done PROPERLY (toggled) you don't need retpoline
>
> 1c) If the answer to #1 is yes, is RSB stuffing required ?
Only for the VM exit case
>
> 2) Does toggle mode of IBRS require retpoline ?
NO
>
> 3) Does toggle mode of IBRS require RSB stuffing ?
Only for the VM exit case
>
> 4) Exist CPUs which require IBRS to be selected automatically ?
I do not understand your question exactly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists