From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stable-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:48953 "EHLO mga01.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1731709AbeKVFe5 (ORCPT <rfc822;stable@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:34:57 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 041/361] x86/speculation: Enable cross-hyperthread
 spectre v2 STIBP mitigation
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        WoodhouseDavid <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        SchauflerCasey <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
        Dave Stewart <david.c.stewart@intel.com>
References: <20181111221619.915519183@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20181111221625.598298393@linuxfoundation.org>
 <alpine.LRH.2.00.1811211420130.18805@gjva.wvxbf.pm>
 <20181121135611.GA26411@kroah.com>
 <41234d20-294f-d0f4-336c-64bf9fcb92a7@linux.intel.com>
 <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1811211920570.21108@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <f5abc5dc-2d51-6bd6-85c9-e44b85a342ab@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:59:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1811211920570.21108@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <stable.vger.kernel.org>

On 11/21/2018 10:21 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Tim Chen wrote:
> 
>>> Is it reverted in Linus's tree?  If not, then anything that comes "later
>>> on" will not apply here, right?
>>>
>>> I see the thread asking about this, but I got really conflicting
>>> messages here, and now it's in all of the latest releases, and no
>>> testing seems to have uncovered issues.  Is it just a "slow down"
>>> problem?
>>
>> Greg,
>>
>> It could be a big slow down in excess of 20% for some applications.
>> And cross sibling Spectre v2 attack is quite hard to pull off.
>>
>> So till we have the accompanying patchset that only apply STIBP on processes
>> that really need it instead of universally, it should be withheld from
>> stable.
> 
> Agreed; it will be trivially reintroduced with the rest, once it's ready. 
> It's being built on top of that patch.
> 

Thanks. Appreciate it.

Tim