From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willy Tarreau Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] x86, barrier: stop speculation for failed access_ok Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 21:42:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20180106204229.GD9075@1wt.eu> References: <151520099201.32271.4677179499894422956.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <151520102670.32271.8447983009852138826.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <20180106123242.77f4d860@alans-desktop> <20180106181331.mmrqwwbu2jcjj2si@ast-mbp> <20180106183859.1ad9ae37@alans-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Linus Torvalds , Dan Williams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Peter Zijlstra , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner To: Alan Cox Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180106183859.1ad9ae37@alans-desktop> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 06:38:59PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > Normally people who propose security fixes don't have to argue about the > fact they added 30 clocks to avoid your box being 0wned. In fact it depends, because if a fix makes the system unusable for its initial purpose, this fix will simply not be deployed at all, which is the worst that can happen. Especially when it cannot be disabled by config and people stop updating their systems to stay on the last "known good" version. Fortunately in Linux we often have the choice so that users rarely have a valid reason for not upgrading! Willy