[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230220185957.yzjdnhcqpmkji2xs@treble>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 10:59:57 -0800
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pjt@...gle.com, evn@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, peterz@...radead.org,
pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com, kim.phillips@....com,
alexandre.chartre@...cle.com, daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com,
José Oliveira <joseloliveira11@...il.com>,
Rodrigo Branco <rodrigo@...nelhacking.com>,
Alexandra Sandulescu <aesa@...gle.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/bugs: Allow STIBP with IBRS
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 10:33:56AM -0800, KP Singh wrote:
> static char *stibp_state(void)
> {
> - if (spectre_v2_in_ibrs_mode(spectre_v2_enabled))
> + if (!spectre_v2_user_needs_stibp(spectre_v2_enabled))
> return "";
>
> switch (spectre_v2_user_stibp) {
>
> Also Josh, is it okay for us to have a discussion and have me write
> the patch as a v2? Your current patch does not even credit me at all.
> Seems a bit unfair, but I don't really care. I was going to rev up the
> patch with your suggestions.
Well, frankly the patch needed a complete rewrite. The patch
description was unclear about what the problem is and what's being
fixed. The code was obtuse and the comments didn't help. I could tell
by the other replies that I wasn't the only one confused.
I can give you Reported-by, or did you have some other tag in mind?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists