[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181122094540.GL2131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 10:45:41 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.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>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Dave Stewart <david.c.stewart@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/24] x86/speculation: Remedy the STIBP/IBPB overhead
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 09:14:30PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> It's based on the x86/pti branch unfortunately, which contains the removal
> of the minimal asm retpoline hackery. I noticed too late. If the minimal
> asm stuff should not be backported it's trivial to rebase that series on
> Linus tree.
I see no problem with backporting those patches; the rationale for them
also holds for the stable trees, people really should have a retpoline
enabled compiler available by now.
Also, that minimal thing provided about as much protection as thinking
happy thoughts.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists