Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 9 Apr 2021 11:07:46 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     "Saripalli, RK" <rsaripal@amd.com>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Introduce support for PSF mitigation
Message-ID: <20210409090746.GB15567@zn.tnic>
References: <20210406155004.230790-1-rsaripal@amd.com>
 <20210407223905.5dqgzdaibvgq7jeq@treble>
 <e72bc628-111f-5e3a-bb79-7e77c9fe0424@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e72bc628-111f-5e3a-bb79-7e77c9fe0424@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:56:47AM -0500, Saripalli, RK wrote:
> It is possible most applications have been reviewed and scrubbed for
> SSB-type attacks but PSF-type issues may not have been looked at yet.
> This may be one of the cases where SSB is enabled but PSF is disabled
> until the application(s) are scrubbed for the same.

Right, and for that I think we could do a slimmer version of the psfd=
toggle - no prctl and seccomp stuff - just the cmdline disable thing to
keep this simpler.

Btw "psfd=" is maybe too short and cryptic. It would probably be more
user-friendly if it were called:

predict_store_fwd={on,off,...}

or so.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette