[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1811211920570.21108@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:21:31 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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, 21 Nov 2018, Tim Chen wrote:
> > 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.
Agreed; it will be trivially reintroduced with the rest, once it's ready.
It's being built on top of that patch.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists