Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935350AbcKJRJq (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:09:46 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:13638 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935274AbcKJRJo (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:09:44 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,619,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="1057937998" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/cpufeature: Add User-Mode Instruction Prevention definitions To: Ricardo Neri , Andy Lutomirski References: <1478585533-19406-1-git-send-email-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> <1478585533-19406-2-git-send-email-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> <1478665516.2533.2.camel@ranerica-desktop> <1478748283.2551.5.camel@ranerica-desktop> Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , X86 ML , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , Andy Lutomirski , Andrew Morton , Borislav Petkov , Brian Gerst , Chen Yucong , Chris Metcalf , Fenghua Yu , Huang Rui , Jiri Slaby , Jonathan Corbet , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Paul Gortmaker , Peter Zijlstra , "Ravi V . Shankar" , Shuah Khan , Vlastimil Babka From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: <0464c3f4-3810-14f5-e1bb-45eec14a7e63@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:09:43 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1478748283.2551.5.camel@ranerica-desktop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 769 Lines: 16 On 11/09/2016 07:24 PM, Ricardo Neri wrote: > On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 03:02 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: ... >> > What I mean is: why does this need a config option at all? > I intended this feature to be configurable at build time in case someone > wants to build a kernel without it; similar to other features such as > SMAP. Is this not needed? Should Linux be built with this feature always > enabled? I think marking these features with their own CONFIG's is a really good idea. It helps the tinification effort. It's also nice for folks that might want to turn all the Intel features off because they're running on AMD or something. We don't necessarily need prompts for *everything*, but I can't imagine just slapping the code in without #ifdefs of any kind.