[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7c1de6fb-fa83-47bc-a57b-e6700860513d@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 09:39:51 -0700
From: Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@....com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Cc: "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com" <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/bugs: Create single parameter for VERW based
mitigations
>>
>> Are you suggesting a name change away from "clear_cpu_buffers" since it is
>> clearly about the mitigation rather than the bug? I'm not sure there is a good
>> common name for those 4 bugs that isn't about the mitigation, but I'm open
>> to any suggestions.
>>
>
> Yes, I think that would be better. I wasn't sure on a name either. In the RFDS webpage I see it described as "similar to data sampling transient execution attacks". Perhaps something like that could be an umbrella term?
>
Sure, I can change it. Thanks for the review!
> --David Kaplan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists