[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1811190000070.21108@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 00:01:26 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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, 18 Nov 2018, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> It's probably not just browsers, but anything running JITed sandboxed
> code. So the most straightforward way might be the prctl() aproach, where
> userspace would claim "I do care about this, please fix it up for me". So
> prctl() + perhaps SECCOMP.
I've just sent SECCOMP handling as a followup to Tim's set.
I still feel like we should make STIBP and IBPB behavior consistent (in a
sense they should always be used both, or none of them), but that might be
additional 4.21 optimization.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists