[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241211075315.grttcgu2ht2vuq5d@jpoimboe>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 23:53:15 -0800
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...nel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] x86/bugs: Add SRSO_USER_KERNEL_NO support
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 04:37:10PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Also it doesn't really make sense to add a printk here as the mitigation
> > will be printed at the end of the function.
>
> This is us letting the user know that we don't need Safe-RET anymore and we're
> falling back. But I'm not that hung up on that printk...
The printk makes sense when it's actually a fallback from
"spec_rstack_overflow=safe-ret", but if nothing was specified on the
cmdline, it's the default rather than a fallback. In which case I think
the printk would be confusing.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists