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:   Tue, 11 Sep 2018 23:46:02 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>, 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>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] x86/speculation: Enable cross-hyperthread spectre
 v2 STIBP mitigation
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809112315320.1427@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809112344050.1427@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809101119280.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm> <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809101123520.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809101158080.1402@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809101259520.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm> <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809101343370.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
 <f0fcbcd9-4619-391e-3c1b-34d06b00de50@linux.intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809112315320.1427@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
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 Tue, 11 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018, Tim Chen wrote:
> > On 09/10/2018 04:46 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > Nah, IBPB is actuall there, sorry. So I'll add reporting of STIBP + fixup 
> > > the missing reporting of RSB_CTXSW for v6.
> > > 
> > 
> > I anticipate that STIBP could affect workloads with a lot of indirect
> > branches (see previous discussion with Andrea).  We should have a 
> > knob for people to opt in or opt out of STIBP.
> 
> Feel free to send a patch to that effect.

Along with a proper explanation why it makes sense to disable this
particular piece separate from the rest of the V2 mitigations. You surely
can come up with a rationale based on facts rather than on anticipations.

Thanks,

	tglx