[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241114161958.GIZzYjLgooyYCECCl0@fat_crate.local>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 17:19:58 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@....com>
Cc: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
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" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/35] x86/bugs: Restructure spectre_v1 mitigation
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 03:49:42PM +0000, Kaplan, David wrote:
> Actually looks like the existing code wasn't always consistent here. For
> srbds, ssb, and gds, it would still print a message about the system being
> vulnerable even if mitigations=off was passed. But for the others it would
> not print a message. I think I'm going to suppress the message for all
> cases, but if people feel it should be the other way, let me know.
Yeah, we probably should fix this in a pre-patch. I.e., if mitigations=off,
not issue any "Vulnerable" message because this is the "master switch", so to
speak.
Or do we want to issue a bunch of "Vulnerable" in dmesg?
I gravitate towards former because if user supplies mitigations=off, then she
probably knows what she's doing...?
Hmm.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists