On 10/29/24 09:37, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 08:33:51AM -0700, Daniel Sneddon wrote: >> I really like the attack vector idea David is using. I suspect people really >> care about "protect my kernel from bad users" or "protect my host vm from >> guests" more than "protect me from mds and rfds." > > Yeah, exactly! > >> I was trying to get rid of the need to do a call to any kind of update >> function where he took the existing function and split it into one for each >> mitigation that needs it. Like you said, different approach same end result >> really. > > Right. > > Ok, let's concentrate on David's set, then, so that we don't do > unnecessary/doubled work. I'd appreciate it if you took a look at the Intel's > side of things there but please wait until he sends a new version next week. Will do! > > I guess if all agree with the final result, we could look into taking it for > 6.14 or so... > > Thx. >
