On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 12:17:52PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 06:58:24PM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote: > > OK yeah, tainting definitely makes sense, I think that goes quite a > > long way to avoid bogus bug reports? > > It was my feeble attempt back then to leave enough breadcrumbs so that when > I see a bug report, I can say: "well, then don't do that then" and mark it as > invalid. :) > > > I will also update the docs to sound scarier. > > Right. Perhaps issue a pr_warn() for every bit set? People tend to not like WARN/ERR in their production logs much :-) > > So do you think we should allow setting arbitrary cpu features? That > > seems like a much bigger footgun. But then again, the difference > > between "big footgun" and "very big footgun" is not that important, > > either way it needs to be clear to users that this is a scary red > > button. > > Yeah, with your patch we're half-way there. Might as well do the whole thing > but again, this is only my opinion. Probably should hear what others have to > say first... Given I'm the one that did the retbleed=force thing (and other force options), I'm in favour.
