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 ; 25 Feb 2019 16:21:53 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1gyIyb-0001Xl-NG for speck@linutronix.de; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:19:34 +0100 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E02C85360 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:19:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tonnant.bos.jonmasters.org (ovpn-123-18.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.123.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 474805D9D1 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:19:23 +0000 (UTC) References: <8d04705a73208de4bb4a4062bf3d977b5ee5c5f4.1551019522.git.ak@linux.intel.com> <20190225151935.GA19947@kroah.com> <20190225153411.GO16922@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20190225154935.GA17057@kroah.com> <81d31cd3-5e8f-5cbd-7aa1-0e92394b2950@redhat.com> <20190225160036.GA18042@kroah.com> From: Jon Masters Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:19:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190225160036.GA18042@kroah.com> Subject: [MODERATED] Encrypted Message Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="edJmjAX2LK36D9BaayYaSdaYhpGkYCY11"; protected-headers="v1" To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME encrypted message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --edJmjAX2LK36D9BaayYaSdaYhpGkYCY11 Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers; protected-headers="v1" Content-Disposition: inline From: Jon Masters To: speck for Greg KH Subject: Re: Encrypted Message --edJmjAX2LK36D9BaayYaSdaYhpGkYCY11 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2/25/19 11:00 AM, speck for Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:52:30AM -0500, speck for Jon Masters wrote: >> From: Jon Masters >> To: speck for Greg KH >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 31/43] MDSv6 >=20 >> On 2/25/19 10:49 AM, speck for Greg KH wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 07:34:11AM -0800, speck for Andi Kleen wrote:= >> >> >>>> However I will probably not be able to write a detailed >>>> description for each of the interrupt handlers changed because >>>> there are just too many. >>> >>> Then how do you expect each subsystem / driver author to know if this= is >>> an acceptable change or not? How do you expect to educate driver >>> authors to have them determine if they need to do this on their new >>> drivers or not? Are you going to hand-audit each new driver that get= s >>> added to the kernel for forever? >>> >>> Without this type of information, this seems like a futile exercise. >> >> Forgive me if I'm being too cautious here, but it seems to make most >> sense to have the basic MDS infrastructure in place at unembargo. Unle= ss >> it's very clear how the auto stuff can be safe, and the audit >> comprehensive, I wonder if that shouldn't just be done after. >=20 > I thought that was what Thomas's patchset provided and is what was > alluded to in patch 00/43 of this series. Indeed. I'm asking whether we're trying to figure out the "auto" stuff as well before unembargo or is the other discussion just for planning? Jon. --=20 Computer Architect | Sent with my Fedora powered laptop --edJmjAX2LK36D9BaayYaSdaYhpGkYCY11--