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:   Wed, 5 Sep 2018 20:26:38 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] ptrace: Provide ___ptrace_may_access() that can
 be applied on arbitrary tasks
In-Reply-To: <20180905155823.GL27886@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809052025250.1416@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1808312242130.25787@cbobk.fhfr.pm> <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809041619510.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm> <alpine.LRH.2.00.1809041639340.14475@gjva.wvxbf.pm> <31436186-88da-324e-88a0-8fdca7bf60ac@linux.intel.com> <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809041932590.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
 <99FC4B6EFCEFD44486C35F4C281DC67321447094@ORSMSX107.amr.corp.intel.com> <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809042046180.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm> <3f24e8c8-eab8-66c2-9a8d-957e30cac809@linux.intel.com> <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809050725390.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
 <20180905155823.GL27886@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:

> > So, after giving it a bit more thought, I still believe "I want spectre V2 
> > protection" vs. "I do not care about spectre V2 on my system 
> > (=nospectre_v2)" are the sane options we should provide; so I'll respin v4 
> > of my patchset, including the ptrace check in switch_mm() (statically 
> > patched out on !IBPB-capable systems), and we can then later see whether 
> > the LSM implementation, once it exists, should be used instead.
> 
> Please if you repost include plenty of performance numbers for multi threaded
> workloads.  It's ridiculous to even discuss this without them.

Either we care about that problem and provide a proper mechanism to protect
systems or we do not. That's not a performance number problem at all.

Thanks,

	tglx