[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190910062828.GA40888@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:28:28 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: hpa@...or.com
Cc: Brendan Shanks <bshanks@...eweavers.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/umip: Add emulation for 64-bit processes
* hpa@...or.com <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> I would strongly suggest that we change the term "emulation" to
> "spoofing" for these instructions. We need to explain that we do *not*
> execute these instructions the was the CPU would have, and unlike the
> native instructions do not leak kernel information.
Ok, I've edited the patch to add the 'spoofing' wording where
appropriate, and I also made minor fixes such as consistently
capitalizing instruction names.
Can I also add your Reviewed-by tag?
So the patch should show up in tip:x86/asm today-ish, and barring any
complications is v5.4 material.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists