From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73EBC32771 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:03:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC017217F4 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:03:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727071AbgATTDB (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:03:01 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:34141 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726112AbgATTDB (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:03:01 -0500 Received: from p5b06da22.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([91.6.218.34] helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1itcK7-0006Ja-EC; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 20:02:55 +0100 Received: by nanos.tec.linutronix.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BCE58105BE6; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 20:02:54 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Anthony Steinhauser , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, Anthony Steinhauser Subject: Re: [PATCH] Return ENXIO instead of EPERM when speculation control is unimplemented In-Reply-To: <20191229164830.62144-1-asteinhauser@google.com> References: <20191229164830.62144-1-asteinhauser@google.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 20:02:54 +0100 Message-ID: <87o8uy2boh.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Anthony, Anthony Steinhauser writes: > return ""; > > switch (spectre_v2_user) { > - case SPECTRE_V2_USER_NONE: > + case SPECTRE_V2_USER_UNAVAILABLE: > + return ", STIBP: unavailable"; Shouldn't this for correctness differentiate between the case where the STIBP mitigation feature is not available and the case where STIBP is not used because SMT is not possible? Thanks, tglx