[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b7242c5d-f667-1cdb-19ff-8f7ee06b9e7d@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 12:10:08 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: "Tada, Kenta (Sony)" <Kenta.Tada@...y.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"jpoimboe@...hat.com" <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com"
<pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Check whether speculation is force
disabled
On 6/4/20 3:29 AM, Tada, Kenta (Sony) wrote:
>> It conflicts with your new code. We can have an argument on whether IB should follow how SSB is being handled. Before that is settled,
> Thank you for the information.
> It conflicts but I think users who read the below document get confused.
> Documentation/userspace-api/spec_ctrl.rst.
>
> Especially, seccomp users must know the difference of this implicit specification
> because both IB and SSB are force disabled simultaneously when seccomp is enabled
> without SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_SPEC_ALLOW on x86.
What I am saying is that you have to make the argument why your patch is
the right way to do thing and also make sure that the comment is
consistent. Your current patch doesn't do that.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists