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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 F25AFC43441 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 22:55:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F132080F for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 22:55:26 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C1F132080F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390380AbeKVJbv (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Nov 2018 04:31:51 -0500 Received: from mga17.intel.com ([192.55.52.151]:20837 "EHLO mga17.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390349AbeKVJbv (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Nov 2018 04:31:51 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Nov 2018 14:55:24 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,262,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="110134814" Received: from avandeve-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.251.25.44]) ([10.251.25.44]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2018 14:55:23 -0800 Subject: Re: [patch 01/24] x86/speculation: Update the TIF_SSBD comment To: Borislav Petkov , Thomas Gleixner Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux List Kernel Mailing , the arch/x86 maintainers , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Lutomirski , Jiri Kosina , thomas.lendacky@amd.com, Josh Poimboeuf , Andrea Arcangeli , David Woodhouse , Andi Kleen , dave.hansen@intel.com, Casey Schaufler , "Mallick, Asit K" , jcm@redhat.com, longman9394@gmail.com, Greg KH , david.c.stewart@intel.com, Kees Cook , Tim Chen References: <20181121201430.559770965@linutronix.de> <20181121201722.337599561@linutronix.de> <20181121225336.GE27559@zn.tnic> From: Arjan van de Ven Message-ID: <9cbce8e5-bc0d-a817-04f5-57b9f8ec0f70@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:55:20 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181121225336.GE27559@zn.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/21/2018 2:53 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:48:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> Btw, I really do not like the app2app wording. I'd rather go for usr2usr, >> but that's kinda horrible as well. But then, all of this is horrible. >> >> Any better ideas? > > It needs to have "task isolation" in there somewhere as this is what it > does, practically. But it needs to be more precise as in "isolates the > tasks from influence due to shared hardware." :) > part of the problem is that "sharing" has multiple dimensions: time and space (e.g. hyperthreading) which makes it hard to find a nice term for it other than describing who attacks whom