[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: STIBP by default.. Revert?

* Linus Torvalds <> wrote:

> This was marked for stable, and honestly, nowhere in the discussion
> did I see any mention of just *how* bad the performance impact of this
> was.

Yeah. This was an oversight - we'll fix it!

> When performance goes down by 50% on some loads, people need to start
> asking themselves whether it was worth it. It's apparently better to
> just disable SMT entirely, which is what security-conscious people do
> anyway.
> So why do that STIBP slow-down by default when the people who *really*
> care already disabled SMT?
> I think we should use the same logic as for L1TF: we default to
> something that doesn't kill performance. Warn once about it, and let
> the crazy people say "I'd rather take a 50% performance hit than
> worry about a theoretical issue".

Yeah, absolutely.

We'll also require performance measurements in changelogs enabling any
sort of mitigation feature from now on - this requirement was implicit
but 53c613fe6349 flew in under the radar, so it's going to be explicit an
explicit requirement.



 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-19 09:39    [W:0.111 / U:0.588 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site