[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240419150033.GBZiKHEUVzwz1LUDS5@fat_crate.local>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:00:33 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpu: Ignore "mitigations" kernel parameter if
CPU_MITIGATIONS=n
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 05:15:07PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Explicitly disallow enabling mitigations at runtime for kernels that were
> built with CONFIG_CPU_MITIGATIONS=n, which currently is possible only on
> x86 (via x86's SPECULATION_MITIGATIONS menuconfig).
Hm, so the umbrella term is CPU_MITIGATIONS, the x86-one is
SPECULATION_MITIGATIONS.
I wanna streamline our namespacing and say, the arch agnostic term
should be CPU_MITIGATIONS and the x86 one should be then
X86_CPU_MITIGATIONS, the Arm one would be ARM_CPU_MITIGATIONS and so on.
This way we can stick all kinds of special mitigations code - not only
speculative execution ones - under those config items and have it all
straight from the get-go.
And I think we should do it now, before it all propagates down the tree
and becomes a lot harder to rename.
Thoughts?
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists