[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <05ce2bb1-46c2-48af-83c3-911f00f290d9@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:49:33 -0700
From: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
<ebiggers@...nel.org>, <luto@...nel.org>, <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
<tglx@...utronix.de>, <bp@...en8.de>, <mingo@...nel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
<herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <ardb@...nel.org>, <elliott@....com>,
<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <bernie.keany@...el.com>,
<charishma1.gairuboyina@...el.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9a 10/14] x86/cpu/keylocker: Check Gather Data Sampling
mitigation
On 4/18/2024 5:01 PM, Pawan Gupta wrote:
>
> Repurposing gds_ucode_mitigated() to check for the locked state is
> adding a bit of a churn. We can introduce gds_mitigation_locked()
> instead.
I thought this option but I was less convinced about adding a new
function for every new but slightly different check.
Thanks,
Chang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists