[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZVzS7W8qNs5TKqfn@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 07:55:25 -0800
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>, leit@...a.com,
"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 12/12] x86/bugs: Add a separate config for missing
mitigation
On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 02:43:56PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > > I'm thinking CONFIG_MITIGATION_SPECTRE_V2 should also affect whether the spectre v2 user
> > > mitigation gets enabled.
> >
> > Makes sense, would something like this be enough?
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> While you're at it, for consistency can you add a cpu_mitigations_off()
> check to spectre_v2_parse_user_cmdline()?
Good catch. I think we might want to do it in
`spectre_v2_user_select_mitigation()`, but let me test better and send it.
Since this is not dependent on this patch series, I will send this as an
idividual patch, to avoiding growing this patchset much (currently at 13
patches).
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists