From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Poimboeuf Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] cpu/speculation: Add 'cpu_spec_mitigations=' cmdline options Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:49:08 -0500 Message-ID: <20190404164908.slgmhnrsbnjhmq5r@treble> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H . Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Jiri Kosina , Waiman Long , Andrea Arcangeli , Jon Masters , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 11:44:11AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Keeping track of the number of mitigations for all the CPU speculation > bugs has become overwhelming for many users. It's getting more and more > complicated to decide which mitigations are needed for a given > architecture. Complicating matters is the fact that each arch tends to > their own custom way to mitigate the same vulnerability. ... tends to _have_ its own custom way ... -- Josh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29014 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726698AbfDDQtU (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:49:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:49:08 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] cpu/speculation: Add 'cpu_spec_mitigations=' cmdline options Message-ID: <20190404164908.slgmhnrsbnjhmq5r@treble> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H . Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Jiri Kosina , Waiman Long , Andrea Arcangeli , Jon Masters , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tyler Hicks , Linus Torvalds Message-ID: <20190404164908.r4AYeBs3-dkedAjA4YfFz402EZXqM30A9pdq22wsHN4@z> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 11:44:11AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Keeping track of the number of mitigations for all the CPU speculation > bugs has become overwhelming for many users. It's getting more and more > complicated to decide which mitigations are needed for a given > architecture. Complicating matters is the fact that each arch tends to > their own custom way to mitigate the same vulnerability. ... tends to _have_ its own custom way ... -- Josh