On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 18:28 +0000, Van De Ven, Arjan wrote: > > As you know well, I mean "we think Intel's document is not > > correct". > > you asked before and even before you sent the email I confirmed to > you that the document is correct > > I'm not sure what the point is to then question that again 15 minutes > later other than creating more noise. Apologies, I hadn't seen the comment on IRC. Sometimes the docs *don't* get it right, especially when they're released in a hurry as that one was. I note there's a *fourth* version of microcode-update-guidance.pdf available now, for example :) So it is useful that you have explicitly stated that for *this* specific concern, the document is in fact correct that SMEP saves us from BTB and RSB pollution, *despite* the empirical evidence that those structures only hold the low 31 bits. I'm going to get back to other things now, although I'm sure others may be very interested to reconcile the empirical evidence with what you say, and want to know *how* that can be the case. Which I'm sure you won't be able to say in public anyway.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
