[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1811200048480.21108@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:49:46 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
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>,
Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <longman9394@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v5 11/16] x86/speculation: Add Spectre v2 app to app
protection modes
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > What? IBPB makes tons of sense even without STIBP.
>
> I'm lost. :)
>
> I don't think anyone is talking about using STIBP *everywhere* that IBPB
> is in-use.
>
> We're just guessing that, if anybody is paranoid enough to ask for IBPB,
> *and* they have SMT, they almost certainly want STIBP too.
I think you are not lost :) and this is exactly what makes sense, and what
Tim's patchset implements.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists