From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Waiman Long Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] cpu/speculation: Add 'cpu_spec_mitigations=' cmdline options Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:50:54 -0400 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Josh Poimboeuf , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H . Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Jiri Kosina , 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 List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 04/04/2019 12:44 PM, 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 > it own custom way to mitigate the same vulnerability. ... tends to "have its" own ... ? -Longman From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54624 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727191AbfDDQvO (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:51:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] cpu/speculation: Add 'cpu_spec_mitigations=' cmdline options References: From: Waiman Long Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:50:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Josh Poimboeuf , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H . Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Jiri Kosina , 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: <20190404165054.iJV6ETT60vreD-Rl1FsxCk4pKUcybxmjvQFzn5MlZDs@z> On 04/04/2019 12:44 PM, 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 > it own custom way to mitigate the same vulnerability. ... tends to "have its" own ... ? -Longman