[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0575AF4FD06DD142AD198903C74E1CC87A600FE7@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:28:41 +0000
From: "Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Janakarajan Natarajan <Janakarajan.Natarajan@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
"Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Radim Krcmár <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
"Andrea Arcangeli" <aarcange@...hat.com>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC 09/10] x86/enter: Create macros to restrict/unrestrict
Indirect Branch Speculation
> On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 10:12 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On 1/26/2018 10:11 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > >
> > > I am *actively* ignoring Skylake right now. This is about per-SKL
> > > userspace even with SMEP, because we think Intel's document lies to us.
> >
> > if you think we lie to you then I think we're done with the conversation?
> >
> > Please tell us then what you deploy in AWS for your customers ?
> >
> > or show us research that shows we lied to you?
>
> As you know well, I mean "we think Intel's document is not correct".
you asked before and even before you sent the email I confirmed to you that the document is correct
I'm not sure what the point is to then question that again 15 minutes later other than creating more noise.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists