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 ; 19 Feb 2019 15:56:22 -0000 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1gw7kq-0000Dv-2o for speck@linutronix.de; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:56:21 +0100 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:56:16 -0800 From: Andi Kleen Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [patch 0/8] MDS basics 0 Message-ID: <20190219155616.GP16922@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <20190219124406.449727187@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190219124406.449727187@linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: > So while being grumpy about this communication fail, I'm even more > grumpy about the fact, that we don't have even the minimal full/off > mitigation in place in a workable form. I asked specifically for this There seems to be certainly a communication fail here. The minimal version has been posted on this mailing list in late December (although it only showed up in early January because ...) -Andi