linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 27/34] x86/bugs: Add attack vector controls for spectre

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9f5b7d94-91ae-41be-b4f3-49d2b9526133@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:16:36 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@....com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
 Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 27/34] x86/bugs: Add attack vector controls for
 spectre_v1

On 9/12/24 12:57, Kaplan, David wrote:
> And to be clear, I was trying to continue to support both.  But the 
> attack-vector style is also more future-proof because when new issues 
> arise, they would get added to the appropriate vectors and users 
> wouldn't have to do anything ideally.

That's a good point.  Do you have any inkling about how static folks'
vector selection would have been over time?

For instance, if someone cared about CPU_MITIGATE_GUEST_HOST at the
original spectre_v2 time, did that carry forward to L1TF and all the way
into 2024?

Or would they have had to shift their vector selection over time?