From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linutronix.de (146.0.238.70:993) by crypto-ml.lab.linutronix.de with IMAP4-SSL for ; 06 Jul 2018 20:06:36 -0000 Received: from mga18.intel.com ([134.134.136.126]) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1fbWzy-0004cg-Dl for speck@linutronix.de; Fri, 06 Jul 2018 22:06:35 +0200 Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 13:06:30 -0700 From: "Luck, Tony" Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH v6] boot-time control Message-ID: <20180706200629.GA11671@agluck-desk> References: <20180706191027.GH25550@tassilo.jf.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 09:23:57PM +0200, speck for Jiri Kosina wrote: > I don't know ... I'd bet the number of sysadmins who are able to look up a > CVE is probably much higher than number of sysadmins capable/willing to > wander through kernel sources to find information. If you feel that you must have the CVE here, then shouldn't you have CVE-2018-3646 which covers the virtualization aspects of L1TF rather than CVE-2018-3620 which just covers OS and SMM implications? -Tony