[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180125161547.33e63bb3@alans-desktop>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:16:14 +0000
From: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
karahmed@...zon.de, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de, peterz@...radead.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...ux-foundation.org,
dave.hansen@...el.com, ashok.raj@...el.com, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] x86/cpufeature: Blacklist SPEC_CTRL on early
Spectre v2 microcodes
> Here's what I have now. I'm happy enough with this, so the main thing
> I'm looking for is an ack from Alan for patch #5 of the series, if I've
> got that sufficiently correct now.
You have my ACK for patch 5: Any further changes I'll submit as updates
once it's merged.
I am happy with patch 5 and I think for 64bit we are probably done for
the mainstream. VIA/Centaur data would be nice.
The microcode otoh I don't think makes sense - do you want to be secure
with a slightly higher risk of crashes or insecure ? Once you can point
at a newer ucode for each case then yes I personally at least think it
then makes sense to tell users they want the newer one.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists