[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250226223416.kdrzblkw7nvyc2vq@desk>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:34:16 -0800
From: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@....com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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 v3 20/35] x86/bugs: Define attack vectors
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:18:51PM +0000, Kaplan, David wrote:
> No. I'm saying that mitigations=off would be equivalent to the above
> command line. The <vuln>_select_mitigation() functions wouldn't have to
> call cpu_mitigations_off() anymore, they'd just naturally chose no
> mitigation because no attack vectors would be selected.
Ohk, thanks for the clarification.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists