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, 11 Apr 2019 08:15:40 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] cpu/speculation: Add 'cpu_spec_mitigations='
 cmdline options
Message-ID: <20190411131540.754t5t4tp55i6vjq@treble>
References: <cover.1554396090.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <f0bd17358ab478eaca52f3b1da8305c150911b40.1554396090.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <20190405131211.GE23348@zn.tnic>
 <20190405142048.burthk2jnpcvi2om@treble>
 <20190405152059.GG23348@zn.tnic>
 <20190405160136.GI23348@zn.tnic>
 <20190405161852.nmpk22omgiety4df@treble>
 <87sguqwgu7.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904101408580.3479@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904101408580.3479@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:10:01PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> writes:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:01:36PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >> Thinking about this more, we can shave off the first 4 chars and have it
> > >> be:
> > >> 
> > >> spec_mitigations=
> > >> 
> > >> I think it is painfully clear which speculation mitigations we mean. And
> > >> the other switches don't have "cpu_" prefixes too so...
> > >
> > > Sure, I'm ok with renaming it to that, if there are no objections.
> > 
> > What about when we have a mitigation for a non-speculation related bug :)
> 
> Those kind of silicon bugs are usually mitigated unconditionally.

Right.

But at least "mitigations=" is nice and short.  We could clarify in the
documentation that it doesn't apply to *all* mitigations, only the ones
which are optional and which can affect performance.

And it would give us the freedom to include any future "optional"
mitigations, spec or not.

I kind of like it.  But I could go either way.

-- 
Josh