[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180112180224.GP6718@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:02:24 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
x86@...nel.org, thomas.lendacky@....com,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/retpoline: Fill RSB on context switch for affected
CPUs
> + if ((!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PTI) &&
> + !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SMEP)) || is_skylake_era()) {
> + setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_RSB_CTXSW);
> + pr_info("Filling RSB on context switch\n");
We need to do more things for Skylake (like idle and interrupt fill
and possibly deep call cahin), so I don't think it makes sense to
- have an individual flag for each of these. It can be just a single
flag that enables all of this for Skylake
- print something for each of them. that will just be very noisy
without any useful benefit to the user.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists