On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 02:06:38PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > On 5/13/20 1:49 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 01:21:12PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> Hello Dave, > >> > >> On 5/12/20 6:36 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > >>> Add the PR_SPEC_INDIRECT_BRANCH "misfeature" added in Linux 4.20 > >>> for PR_SET_SPECULATION_CTRL and PR_GET_SPECULATION_CTRL. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Thanks. Patch applied, but not yet pushed while I wait to see if any > >> Review/Ack arrives. > >> > >> Also, could you please check the tweaks I note below. > >> > >>> --- > >>> man2/prctl.2 | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------ > >>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/man2/prctl.2 b/man2/prctl.2 > >>> index e8eaf95..66417cf 100644 > >>> --- a/man2/prctl.2 > >>> +++ b/man2/prctl.2 > >>> @@ -1213,11 +1213,20 @@ arguments must be specified as 0; otherwise the call fails with the error > >>> .\" commit 356e4bfff2c5489e016fdb925adbf12a1e3950ee > >>> Sets the state of the speculation misfeature specified in > >>> .IR arg2 . > >>> -Currently, the only permitted value for this argument is > >>> +Currently, this argument must be one of: > >>> +.RS > >>> +.TP > >>> .B PR_SPEC_STORE_BYPASS > >>> -(otherwise the call fails with the error > >>> +speculative store bypass control, or > >> > >> s/speculative/enable speculative/ > >> > >>> +.\" commit 9137bb27e60e554dab694eafa4cca241fa3a694f > >>> +.TP > >>> +.BR PR_SPEC_INDIRECT_BRANCH " (since Linux 4.20)" > >>> +indirect branch speculation control. > >> > >> s/indirect/enable indirect/ > > > > That doesn't seem quite right. > > My goof, not looking at the bigger context of the patch. > > > > > arg2 just identifies what behaviour to configure. > > It's arg3 that says whether to disable / enable it or whatever. > > > > > > While editing this I did wonder whether the "control" was helpful. > > Maybe just dropping that word from these entries would help. > > Okay I tried to fix things, and made also some other edits. > How does the following look to you? > > PR_SET_SPECULATION_CTRL (since Linux 4.17) > Sets the state of the speculation misfeature specified in > arg2. The speculation-misfeature settings are per-thread > attributes. > > Currently, arg2 must be one of: > > PR_SPEC_STORE_BYPASS > Set the state of the speculative store bypass mis‐ > feature. > > PR_SPEC_INDIRECT_BRANCH (since Linux 4.20) > Set the state of the indirect branch speculation > misfeature. > > If arg2 does not have one of the above values, then the > call fails with the error ENODEV. > > The arg3 argument is used to hand in the control value, > which is one of the following: > > ... Look OK to me. I thought it sounded odd to "set the state" of a silicon bug, but that was a bogus concern. This isn't about bugs, but intentional, often configurable behaviours in the silicon that happen to have harmful side effects. It could be more terse to say "configure" instead of "set the state of", but either way works for me. Cheers ---Dave
