[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801101452100.1919@nanos>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:53:28 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
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
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, Van De Ven, Arjan wrote:
> > 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.
> > 2) Does toggle mode of IBRS require retpoline ?
>
> NO
>
> >
> > 3) Does toggle mode of IBRS require RSB stuffing ?
>
> Only for the VM exit case
Ok.
> >
> > 4) Exist CPUs which require IBRS to be selected automatically ?
>
> I do not understand your question exactly
Whether the kernel should enable IBRS by default on certain models. And if
yes, which ones.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists