lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:

>>
>> Why is this all done without any configuration options?
>
> I was thinking of a config option, but I was struggling with a name.
>
> CONFIG_INSECURE_KERNEL, CONFIG_LEAK_MEMORY?

CONFIG_BUGGY_INTEL_CACHE (or similar)

something that indicates that this is to support the Intel CPUs that have this
bug in them.

We've had such CPU specific support options in the past.

Some people will need the speed more than the protection, some people will be
running on CPUs that don't need this.

Why is this needed? because of an Intel bug, so name it accordingly.

David Lang

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-04 01:31    [W:0.063 / U:25.864 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site