Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 19:24:18 +0000
From: Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, w@1wt.eu,
        alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        dan.j.williams@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, arnd@arndb.de,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] x86, barrier: stop speculation for failed
 access_ok
Message-ID: <20180107192418.0f0b66a8@alans-desktop>
In-Reply-To: <1515345560.3075.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
References: <20180106181331.mmrqwwbu2jcjj2si@ast-mbp>
        <20180106183859.1ad9ae37@alans-desktop>
        <20180106204229.GD9075@1wt.eu>
        <20180106.203654.731754766847198456.davem@davemloft.net>
        <1515345560.3075.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Organization: Intel Corporation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

> everyone.  I'm not saying this always happens, but it is reasonable to
> let the iterative pushback see if we can get to better code in this
> case rather than trying to cut it of with the "because *security*"
> argument.
> 

I'm not arguing otherwise - I'd just prefer most users machines are
secure while we have the discussion and while we see what other
architectural tricks people can come up with

Alan