[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250703100155.GAaGZVEwI9BWv9Cwjs@fat_crate.local>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2025 12:01:55 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@....com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
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 v5 14/20] x86/bugs: Add attack vector controls for BHI
On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 06:24:31PM +0000, Kaplan, David wrote:
> So probably the right answer here is to split this up. I'll change the
> patch to just use the existing mitigations and structure it like your
> snippet above. If someone wants to add a new user->kernel only option for
> BHI, that can be done in a separate patch later. There's actually probably
> several other mitigations that could similarly be split up based on attack
> vector (e.g. have separate controls for VERW in various places), if we
> wanted to have more mitigation options based on attack vectors (instead of
> just a simple on/off).
Yeah, the thought that our mitigations are not really consistent wrt vectors
did cross my mind. We should definitely keep this in mind and perhaps
restructure them into a common pattern later, if it turns beneficial.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists