From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A0AE8489; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 16:40:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728492007; cv=none; b=d/CCMfFtrN0IKaz+bnnjHWsFCPHz1Tie7VcV85ZTf1LtWk2V24n/q0JRS3msWXKfVyaJmE7DY6jTmA8k9PcliEDHoD3rU1vE8rHCeVE+ClUiKKZE+JqdF2bepGtJXQ3xerP9EtplHcUVMBi9ZSMQ8trIbzY4epg4GZRE7noOh+0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728492007; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AyEmnMzFLIGd/wqwrwyUbljGLWa9Ym+dv+sMjDK0TEI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=s29fxnDERAkfiL4C34vy9VNwyC0WiPoCsk7B5s22b4jz+cIJC2BDazWTVfwBbLTx7jg/Xe2HprbU9tF3DlclsyQ1/SoO0kfFYQ+IApPTBlqP7VuKcNcNN7ymFB1TQmCYSe/pBdyqAoCKJLRHVVTygyXYj6m3B1Th1XIm0ch4ib8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=XFktITqL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="XFktITqL" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1728492006; x=1760028006; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AyEmnMzFLIGd/wqwrwyUbljGLWa9Ym+dv+sMjDK0TEI=; b=XFktITqL/slGcNMRhxejNs+PRUeKuAQe17F4FRz0SGnZHpp6+ZvHUN+N X5/04NICt5S5YLGtAqPd+BCVcVpwWt2v0VG7Xp42BtJD0hHqLj0ax1yJv xvehrQChPYaqwaY+ir80uCaD8Op5OOYITUFpwlWboFwc2uqmC1H5n9VIk LFF0K3vOxbhP8JX7Z/8iDMlzJzYfappi3AnCeZV0OH14NtXBdy8U8krGW Faj+V9pvlwfi0qwR56Dj6TuSSzSJQQyxfSBplBiyX5qdoLxTcguuk4Nc2 sKZ5nCXHFgQFZulkgJMrpAsrUJtW+feYCR22dMdwpDbYbeuV/h4NvNB9t w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: H/m5Z8G+QzyiwTp23e/vfQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: zCY/RkXNQoaWiQ4KMcne0g== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11220"; a="27889470" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,190,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="27889470" Received: from orviesa009.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.149]) by orvoesa108.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Oct 2024 09:39:54 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: GOxybgkTQEOM5IZ6AGO8tg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: U4+LrSI/QwuW5t8SwSuHXA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,190,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="76254671" Received: from yaaguila-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.125.83.153]) ([10.125.83.153]) by orviesa009-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Oct 2024 09:39:53 -0700 Message-ID: <7c1de6fb-fa83-47bc-a57b-e6700860513d@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 09:39:51 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/bugs: Create single parameter for VERW based mitigations To: "Kaplan, David" , Jonathan Corbet , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , Peter Zijlstra , Josh Poimboeuf , Ingo Molnar , Dave Hansen , "x86@kernel.org" Cc: "hpa@zytor.com" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com" References: <20240924223140.1054918-2-daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com> <879b3437-c706-47c4-b1aa-b2def940f569@linux.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Daniel Sneddon In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >> Are you suggesting a name change away from "clear_cpu_buffers" since it is >> clearly about the mitigation rather than the bug? I'm not sure there is a good >> common name for those 4 bugs that isn't about the mitigation, but I'm open >> to any suggestions. >> > > Yes, I think that would be better. I wasn't sure on a name either. In the RFDS webpage I see it described as "similar to data sampling transient execution attacks". Perhaps something like that could be an umbrella term? > Sure, I can change it. Thanks for the review! > --David Kaplan