From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:26460 "EHLO mga05.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725979AbeHWXJp (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 19:09:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:38:33 -0700 From: Andi Kleen To: Michal Hocko Cc: Vlastimil Babka , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Dave Hansen , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation/l1tf: suggest what to do on systems with too much RAM Message-ID: <20180823193833.GE12066@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <20180823134418.17008-1-vbabka@suse.cz> <20180823142812.7363-1-vbabka@suse.cz> <20180823154648.GD12066@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20180823192547.GS29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180823192547.GS29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > There are people who care about L1TF mitigations. I am not going to > question their motivation. In any case a hint how to make the mitigation > active again sounds more useful than something that sounds as scary as > "you are vulnerable". FWIW an early version of these patches automatically limited the available memory, but Linus pointed out that people likely prefer their memory. I still think his reasoning was right, and likely applies to your message too. -Andi