Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 23 Aug 2018 15:07:53 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation/l1tf: suggest what to do on systems with
 too much RAM
Message-ID: <20180823220753.GG12066@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <20180823134418.17008-1-vbabka@suse.cz>
 <20180823142812.7363-1-vbabka@suse.cz>
 <20180823154648.GD12066@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <20180823192547.GS29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20180823193833.GE12066@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <20180823200520.GW29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180823200520.GW29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 10:05:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 23-08-18 12:38:33, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > There are people who care about L1TF mitigations. I am not going to
> > > question their motivation. In any case a hint how to make the mitigation
> > > active again sounds more useful than something that sounds as scary as
> > > "you are vulnerable".
> > 
> > FWIW an early version of these patches automatically limited the available
> > memory, but Linus pointed out that people likely prefer their memory.
> 
> Nobody is questioning that. The point is to give them a hint on how to
> make the mitigation active again without going to call for help. The
> message does tell them how to _enable_ it and point them to the
> documentation on how to _decide_.

On the message I guess there are two cases:

- either it's very little memory that is lost like in the 32GB + memory
hole case. In this case maybe it's better if we just limit automatically
if the overlap is small enough (<2GB perhaps?)

- Or it's a lot of memory then people are unlikely to want to lose their
memory and I don't think we really need the message either.

Also I checked the bug again and it looks like the reporter has an IvyBridge.
There is actually a better solution for those (anything Nehalem and newer)
because they internally have at least 44 bits in the cache, which
is good enough for the mitigation. Just need a quirk to override
the bit width in this case (will submit a patch)

-Andi