On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 08:22:55PM +0100, KarimAllah Ahmed wrote: > From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Flush indirect branches when switching into a process that marked > itself non dumpable. This protects high value processes like gpg > better, without having too high performance overhead. So if I understand it right, this is only needed if the 'other' executable itself is susceptible to spectre. If say someone audited gpg for spectre-v1 and build it with retpoline, it would be safe to not issue the IBPB, right? So would it make sense to provide an ELF flag / personality thing such that userspace can indicate its spectre-safe? I realize that this is all future work, because so far auditing for v1 is a lot of pain (we need better tools), but would it be something that makes sense in the longer term?
