Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:10:01PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > >> > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:01:36PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> > >> Thinking about this more, we can shave off the first 4 chars and have it >> > >> be: >> > >> >> > >> spec_mitigations= >> > >> >> > >> I think it is painfully clear which speculation mitigations we mean. And >> > >> the other switches don't have "cpu_" prefixes too so... >> > > >> > > Sure, I'm ok with renaming it to that, if there are no objections. >> > >> > What about when we have a mitigation for a non-speculation related bug :) >> >> Those kind of silicon bugs are usually mitigated unconditionally. > > Right. > > But at least "mitigations=" is nice and short. We could clarify in the > documentation that it doesn't apply to *all* mitigations, only the ones > which are optional and which can affect performance. > > And it would give us the freedom to include any future "optional" > mitigations, spec or not. > > I kind of like it. But I could go either way. Some of the published SMT attacks are not speculation based. And arguably we already have an optional mitigation for those, ie. nosmt. cheers
