Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:54:33 -0700
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
        David Kaplan <david.kaplan@amd.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip: x86/bugs] x86/retpoline: Ensure default return thunk isn't
 used at runtime
Message-ID: <20231018155433.z4auwckr5s27wnig@treble>
References: <20231012141031.GHZSf+V1NjjUJTc9a9@fat_crate.local>
 <169713303534.3135.10558074245117750218.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
 <20231018132352.GBZS/caGJ8Wk9kmTbg@fat_crate.local>
 <ZS/f8DeEIWhBtBeb@gmail.com>
 <20231018151245.GCZS/17QhDGe7q6K+w@fat_crate.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231018151245.GCZS/17QhDGe7q6K+w@fat_crate.local>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 05:12:45PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 03:38:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > If then WARN_ONCE().
> 
> WARN_ONCE() is not enough considering that if this fires, it means we're
> not really properly protected against one of those RET-speculation
> things.
> 
> It needs to be warning constantly but then still allow booting. I.e,
> a ratelimited warn of sorts but I don't think we have that... yet.

I'm not sure a rate-limited WARN() would be a good thing.  Either the
user is regularly checking dmesg (most likely in some automated fashion)
or they're not.  If the latter, a rate-limited WARN() would wrap dmesg
pretty quickly.

-- 
Josh