From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linutronix.de (193.142.43.55:993) by crypto-ml.lab.linutronix.de with IMAP4-SSL for ; 24 Oct 2019 20:08:21 -0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15] helo=mx1.suse.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1iNjPA-0000DU-Dv for speck@linutronix.de; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 22:08:20 +0200 Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296E1B0C6 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:08:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 22:08:14 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH 7/9] TAA 7 Message-ID: <20191024200814.GK14115@zn.tnic> References: <137b3a048af221bc7d9ea9a921359942b944204e.1571905227.git.bp@suse.de> <20191024153517.ysko4ni3dadqdzn5@treble> <20191024164226.GD14115@zn.tnic> <20191024195316.GI14115@zn.tnic> <20191024200233.4alkoqepyltqua3l@treble> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191024200233.4alkoqepyltqua3l@treble> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 03:02:33PM -0500, speck for Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > For the same reasons we kept SMT enabled for L1TF and MDS... We don't > want to break existing SMT workloads. Should we add that to the above "auto" option text? I mean, it's not like it is a new decision to keep SMT enabled in the face of a not fully mitigated vuln... --=20 Regards/Gruss, Boris. SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer, HRB 36809, = AG N=C3=BCrnberg --=20