linux-kernel - Re: STIBP by default.. Revert?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjo9==zLdUuZkCgMx1YBUTpZkD3NnLBPDf7Fw388z5Y6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Nov 2018 14:36:09 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: STIBP by default.. Revert?

On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 2:17 PM Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org> wrote:
> Which gets us back to Tim's fixup patch. Do you still prefer the revert,
> given the existence of that?

I don't think the code needs to be reverted, but the *behavior* of
just unconditionally enabling STIBP needs to be reverted.

Because it was clearly way more expensive than people were told.

                Linus