From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] cpu/speculation: Add 'cpu_spec_mitigations=' cmdline options
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:15:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190411131540.754t5t4tp55i6vjq@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904101408580.3479@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:10:01PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:01:36PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >> Thinking about this more, we can shave off the first 4 chars and have it
> > >> be:
> > >>
> > >> spec_mitigations=
> > >>
> > >> I think it is painfully clear which speculation mitigations we mean. And
> > >> the other switches don't have "cpu_" prefixes too so...
> > >
> > > Sure, I'm ok with renaming it to that, if there are no objections.
> >
> > What about when we have a mitigation for a non-speculation related bug :)
>
> Those kind of silicon bugs are usually mitigated unconditionally.
Right.
But at least "mitigations=" is nice and short. We could clarify in the
documentation that it doesn't apply to *all* mitigations, only the ones
which are optional and which can affect performance.
And it would give us the freedom to include any future "optional"
mitigations, spec or not.
I kind of like it. But I could go either way.
--
Josh
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.orglinux-ar
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] cpu/speculation: Add 'cpu_spec_mitigations=' cmdline options
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:15:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190411131540.754t5t4tp55i6vjq@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904101408580.3479@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:10:01PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:01:36PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >> Thinking about this more, we can shave off the first 4 chars and have it
> > >> be:
> > >>
> > >> spec_mitigations=
> > >>
> > >> I think it is painfully clear which speculation mitigations we mean. And
> > >> the other switches don't have "cpu_" prefixes too so...
> > >
> > > Sure, I'm ok with renaming it to that, if there are no objections.
> >
> > What about when we have a mitigation for a non-speculation related bug :)
>
> Those kind of silicon bugs are usually mitigated unconditionally.
Right.
But at least "mitigations=" is nice and short. We could clarify in the
documentation that it doesn't apply to *all* mitigations, only the ones
which are optional and which can affect performance.
And it would give us the freedom to include any future "optional"
mitigations, spec or not.
I kind of like it. But I could go either way.
--
Josh
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] cpu/speculation: Add 'cpu_spec_mitigations=' cmdline options
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:15:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190411131540.754t5t4tp55i6vjq@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904101408580.3479@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:10:01PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:01:36PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >> Thinking about this more, we can shave off the first 4 chars and have it
> > >> be:
> > >>
> > >> spec_mitigations=
> > >>
> > >> I think it is painfully clear which speculation mitigations we mean. And
> > >> the other switches don't have "cpu_" prefixes too so...
> > >
> > > Sure, I'm ok with renaming it to that, if there are no objections.
> >
> > What about when we have a mitigation for a non-speculation related bug :)
>
> Those kind of silicon bugs are usually mitigated unconditionally.
Right.
But at least "mitigations=" is nice and short. We could clarify in the
documentation that it doesn't apply to *all* mitigations, only the ones
which are optional and which can affect performance.
And it would give us the freedom to include any future "optional"
mitigations, spec or not.
I kind of like it. But I could go either way.
--
Josh
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
x86@kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] cpu/speculation: Add 'cpu_spec_mitigations=' cmdline options
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:15:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190411131540.754t5t4tp55i6vjq@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904101408580.3479@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:10:01PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:01:36PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >> Thinking about this more, we can shave off the first 4 chars and have it
> > >> be:
> > >>
> > >> spec_mitigations=
> > >>
> > >> I think it is painfully clear which speculation mitigations we mean. And
> > >> the other switches don't have "cpu_" prefixes too so...
> > >
> > > Sure, I'm ok with renaming it to that, if there are no objections.
> >
> > What about when we have a mitigation for a non-speculation related bug :)
>
> Those kind of silicon bugs are usually mitigated unconditionally.
Right.
But at least "mitigations=" is nice and short. We could clarify in the
documentation that it doesn't apply to *all* mitigations, only the ones
which are optional and which can affect performance.
And it would give us the freedom to include any future "optional"
mitigations, spec or not.
I kind of like it. But I could go either way.
--
Josh
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-11 13:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 131+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-04 16:44 [PATCH RFC 0/5] cpu/speculation: Add 'cpu_spec_mitigations=' cmdline options Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` [PATCH RFC 1/5] " Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:49 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:49 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:49 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:49 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 13:12 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 13:12 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 13:12 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 13:12 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 14:20 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 14:20 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 14:20 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 14:20 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 15:20 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 15:20 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 15:20 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 15:20 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 16:01 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 16:01 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 16:01 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 16:01 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 16:18 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 16:18 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 16:18 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 16:18 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-10 5:48 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-10 5:48 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-10 5:48 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-10 5:48 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-10 8:30 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-10 8:30 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-10 8:30 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-10 8:30 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-10 12:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-04-10 12:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-04-10 12:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-04-10 12:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-04-11 13:15 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2019-04-11 13:15 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-11 13:15 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-11 13:15 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-12 2:41 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-12 2:41 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-12 2:41 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-12 2:41 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-12 2:29 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-12 2:29 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-12 2:29 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-12 2:29 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-04 16:44 ` [PATCH RFC 2/5] x86/speculation: Add support for " Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 13:57 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 13:57 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 13:57 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 13:57 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 14:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 14:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 14:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 14:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 15:26 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 15:26 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 15:26 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 15:26 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-05 16:05 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 16:05 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 16:05 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 16:05 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 15:18 ` Randy Dunlap
2019-04-05 15:18 ` Randy Dunlap
2019-04-05 15:18 ` Randy Dunlap
2019-04-05 15:18 ` Randy Dunlap
2019-04-05 15:30 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 15:30 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 15:30 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 15:30 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` [PATCH RFC 3/5] powerpc/speculation: " Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 19:49 ` Jiri Kosina
2019-04-04 19:49 ` Jiri Kosina
2019-04-04 19:49 ` Jiri Kosina
2019-04-04 19:49 ` Jiri Kosina
2019-04-04 20:01 ` Timothy Pearson
2019-04-04 20:01 ` Timothy Pearson
2019-04-04 20:01 ` Timothy Pearson
2019-04-10 6:06 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-10 6:06 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-10 6:06 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-10 6:06 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-11 4:02 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-11 4:02 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-11 4:02 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-11 4:02 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` [PATCH RFC 4/5] s390/speculation: " Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` [PATCH RFC 5/5] arm64/speculation: " Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 14:39 ` Steven Price
2019-04-05 14:39 ` Steven Price
2019-04-05 14:39 ` Steven Price
2019-04-05 14:39 ` Steven Price
2019-04-05 14:43 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 14:43 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 14:43 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 14:43 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 14:44 ` Will Deacon
2019-04-05 14:44 ` Will Deacon
2019-04-05 14:44 ` Will Deacon
2019-04-05 14:44 ` Will Deacon
2019-04-05 16:03 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 16:03 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 16:03 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-05 16:03 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-04 16:50 ` [PATCH RFC 0/5] cpu/speculation: Add " Waiman Long
2019-04-04 16:50 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-04 16:50 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-04 16:50 ` Waiman Long
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190411131540.754t5t4tp55i6vjq@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jcm@redhat.com \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tyhicks@canonical.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.