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, 10 Sep 2019 08:28:28 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     hpa@zytor.com
Cc:     Brendan Shanks <bshanks@codeweavers.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        x86@kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/umip: Add emulation for 64-bit processes
Message-ID: <20190910062828.GA40888@gmail.com>
References: <20190905232222.14900-1-bshanks@codeweavers.com>
 <7BFFC7D1-6158-4237-AEF9-D10635F054FC@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7BFFC7D1-6158-4237-AEF9-D10635F054FC@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


* hpa@zytor.com <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> I would strongly suggest that we change the term "emulation" to 
> "spoofing" for these instructions. We need to explain that we do *not* 
> execute these instructions the was the CPU would have, and unlike the 
> native instructions do not leak kernel information.

Ok, I've edited the patch to add the 'spoofing' wording where 
appropriate, and I also made minor fixes such as consistently 
capitalizing instruction names.

Can I also add your Reviewed-by tag?

So the patch should show up in tip:x86/asm today-ish, and barring any 
complications is v5.4 material.

Thanks,

	Ingo