From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-path: <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga17.intel.com ([192.55.52.151])
	by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256)
	(Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>)
	id 1fDF9z-0004FF-Fc
	for speck@linutronix.de; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 22:12:31 +0200
Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [patch V7 15/15] SBB 15
References: <20180429193045.711908246@linutronix.de>
 <20180429193938.717571156@linutronix.de>
 <ac49502e-594b-5d98-9b09-07b4ba53b5c4@linux.intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804302134290.1596@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <bf96b696-641c-7130-94e8-56f0937cd174@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:12:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804302134290.1596@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="iEWPvezgPUaLisy5zgi8PwyQaSYsnWtej"; protected-headers="v1"
To: speck@linutronix.de
List-ID: <speck.linutronix.de>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME encrypted message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--iEWPvezgPUaLisy5zgi8PwyQaSYsnWtej
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="FIqd43mRuF4KllciS1yWX1IATSUpXmaOW"

--FIqd43mRuF4KllciS1yWX1IATSUpXmaOW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 04/30/2018 12:36 PM, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, speck for Tim Chen wrote:
>=20
>> On 04/29/2018 12:31 PM, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>>> +static int sbb_prctl_set(unsigned long ctrl)
>>> +{
>>> +	bool rds =3D !!test_tsk_thread_flag(current, TIF_RDS);
>>> +
>>> +	if (ssb_mode !=3D SPEC_STORE_BYPASS_PRCTL)
>>> +		return -ENXIO;
>>
>> Perhaps we should not use the prctl if we don't have
>> the SSB bug.  Something like:
>>
>> 	if (ssb_mode !=3D SPEC_STORE_BYPASS_PRCTL ||
>> 	    !boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_SPEC_STORE_BYPASS))
>> 		return -ENXIO;=20
>=20
> What? If the CPU does not have the bug then the kernel does not enable
> PRCTL mode at all unless
>=20
>       1) RDS is available
>=20
> AND
>=20
>       2) The user enforced PRTCL mode on the kernel command line.
>=20
> So what exactly are you trying to solve?

Right, we will only do the PRCTL only for the case when
admin explicitly ask for it at kernel command line.

We'll let the admin have the choice to do prctl, if he
explicitly ask for it. Even though it
is unnecessary for cpus that don't have the SSB bug and
there will be some added cost in changing the MSR on context
switches.  Just want to clear in my mind that this is the choice
we are making.

Tim

--FIqd43mRuF4KllciS1yWX1IATSUpXmaOW--

--iEWPvezgPUaLisy5zgi8PwyQaSYsnWtej--