[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251204150743.GFaTGjv6gadE7xZ6T8@fat_crate.local>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 16:07:43 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@....com>
Cc: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>,
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>, Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/56] x86/bugs: Reset spectre_v2_user mitigations
On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 08:14:08PM +0000, Kaplan, David wrote:
> Yeah, I think that's worth considering. I think for the get functions (e.g.
> ib_prctl_get()) they can return whatever the current mitigation status is.
> But for the set functions (e.g. ib_prctl_set()) would stop returning EPERM
> due to system-wide mitigation settings.
>
> In other words, maybe something like this? (And similar for the other ones
> like ssb_prctl_seg)
Looks about right to me.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists