[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241029150022.GJZyD4ht9wYcVetdDS@fat_crate.local>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 16:00:38 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
David Kaplan <David.Kaplan@....com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.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,
hpa@...or.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/bugs: Clean-up verw mitigations
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 07:40:28AM -0700, Daniel Sneddon wrote:
> Sure, I'll split this up as much as possible.
Actually, thinking about this more and looking at David's rework:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240912190857.235849-1-david.kaplan@amd.com
his basically is achieving what you're doing - a post-everything routine which
selects the final mitigation strategy once all the mitigation options have
been parsed and evaluated.
So I'm wondering if we should simply take his directly...
He removes that md_clear* function:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240912190857.235849-8-david.kaplan@amd.com
in favor of doing the final selection in the ->apply* functions and keeping
each mitigation functions simple.
Yours does this in a single function.
Practically speaking, the end result is the same.
Hmm...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists