From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ak@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93])
	by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256)
	(Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <ak@linux.intel.com>)
	id 1fLwuj-0001nt-UV
	for speck@linutronix.de; Thu, 24 May 2018 22:32:46 +0200
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 13:32:37 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] L1TFv4 4
Message-ID: <20180524203237.GR4486@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <cover.1527111786.git.ak@linux.intel.com>
 <20180523215651.BFF82610ED@crypto-ml.lab.linutronix.de>
 <20180524040438.3u66mkm2skcpg24w@treble>
 <20180524133545.GN4486@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <20180524154511.z4rlf6lplnfq2ewo@treble>
 <20180524165305.GQ4486@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <20180524175340.7a57cmv3w2fakmas@treble>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180524175340.7a57cmv3w2fakmas@treble>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: speck@linutronix.de
List-ID: <speck.linutronix.de>

> In that case the "Disabled L1TF workaround" printk and the L1TF_WA
> feature are misleading.  Even with X86_FEATURE_L1TF_WA cleared, the
> workaround is still in place, it just might not be 100% effective.

I changed the wording of the message to "L1TF workaround not effective."

-Andi