[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181121181513.GA30870@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:15:13 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
WoodhouseDavid <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
SchauflerCasey <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
Dave Stewart <david.c.stewart@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 041/361] x86/speculation: Enable cross-hyperthread
spectre v2 STIBP mitigation
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 09:47:48AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> On 11/21/2018 05:56 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 02:21:15PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>
> >>> 4.19-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >>
> >> Greg, please drop this patch from all -stable for now. Version that
> >> wouldn't have such performance impact is being worked on.
> >
> > Is it reverted in Linus's tree? If not, then anything that comes "later
> > on" will not apply here, right?
> >
> > I see the thread asking about this, but I got really conflicting
> > messages here, and now it's in all of the latest releases, and no
> > testing seems to have uncovered issues. Is it just a "slow down"
> > problem?
>
> Greg,
>
> It could be a big slow down in excess of 20% for some applications.
> And cross sibling Spectre v2 attack is quite hard to pull off.
>
> So till we have the accompanying patchset that only apply STIBP on processes
> that really need it instead of universally, it should be withheld from
> stable.
Ok, now reverted, thanks.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists