From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1fEB5y-00064g-HK for speck@linutronix.de; Thu, 03 May 2018 12:04:17 +0200 Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A505ABEF for ; Thu, 3 May 2018 10:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 12:04:06 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: [MODERATED] Re: Updated L1TF native OS patch Message-ID: <20180503100406.GF4535@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180501234247.GA41910@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20180502000512.GO75137@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20180502012112.GQ75137@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20180502121420.GB31258@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180502121420.GB31258@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: On Wed 02-05-18 14:14:20, speck for Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > I have to confess that I do not understand the thread model for > PROT_NONE patch though. The mitigation _has_ to be done on the > VM layer otherwise we are screwed. So why should we even bother > and make the code even more kludgy? Now with the thread model clarified and the patch reviewed you can add Acked-by: Michal Hocko I still think that the changelog could be more explicit but leave the decision on you. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs