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;
Subject: Re: [patch 01/24] x86/speculation: Update the TIF_SSBD comment
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, dave.hansen@intel.com,
        Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
        "Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@intel.com>, jcm@redhat.com,
        longman9394@gmail.com, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        david.c.stewart@intel.com, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
References: <20181121201430.559770965@linutronix.de>
 <20181121201722.337599561@linutronix.de>
 <CAHk-=wgLZkKDLeNN818VG0wC6B_kCUJqKPLdW+KDVocU6_DvtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wj6fZpcad+1O5Ou0HZb0NEv1RM_BweyM0XBGtzE87YXXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811212345180.1665@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20181121225336.GE27559@zn.tnic>
From:   Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <9cbce8e5-bc0d-a817-04f5-57b9f8ec0f70@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:55:20 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181121225336.GE27559@zn.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 11/21/2018 2:53 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:48:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Btw, I really do not like the app2app wording. I'd rather go for usr2usr,
>> but that's kinda horrible as well. But then, all of this is horrible.
>>
>> Any better ideas?
> 
> It needs to have "task isolation" in there somewhere as this is what it
> does, practically. But it needs to be more precise as in "isolates the
> tasks from influence due to shared hardware." :)
> 

part of the problem is that "sharing" has multiple dimensions: time and space (e.g. hyperthreading)
which makes it hard to find a nice term for it other than describing who attacks whom