[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180213080450.7zll3nmn3iuxwg7y@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:04:50 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
karahmed@...zon.de, sironi@...zon.de, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
peterz@...radead.org, jmattson@...gle.com, rkrcmar@...hat.com,
arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Clean up various Spectre related details
* David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 20:43 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > And should these say 'Spectre v2' not just 'Spectre'?
> >
> > Yeah, you are probably right, but I didn't want to make the messages too specific
> > - do we really know that this is the end of Spectre-style speculation holes?
>
> Well... if a new problem is also remedied by use if IBRS/IBPB and
> retpoline, I think we can happily call it a subclass of "Spectre v2".
>
> And if it *isn't* addressed by those same things, then it's clearly
> something different. Either way, these messages should be 'v2', no?
Ok, fair enough - I've changed it to v2 as you suggest:
- pr_info("Filling RSB on context switch\n");
+ pr_info("Spectre v2 mitigation: Filling RSB on context switch\n");
- pr_info("Enabling Indirect Branch Prediction Barrier\n");
+ pr_info("Spectre v2 mitigation: Enabling Indirect Branch Prediction Barrier\n");
> On the whole though, there are plenty of better things to be worrying
> about :)
Sure - nevertheless I fixed these while they were still hot ;-)
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists