* Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:01:02AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > [...] If we had "pit_enabled", something like this could be confusing
> > > because
> > > it's not obvious whether this pti_enabled *enforces* PTI or if its
> > > absence
> > > disables it :
> > >
> > > cmpb $0, PER_CPU_VAR(pti_enabled)
> > > jz .Lend\@
> >
> > The natural sequence would be:
> >
> > cmpb $1, PER_CPU_VAR(pti_enabled)
> > jne .Lend\@
> >
> > which is not confusing to me at all.
>
> In fact I think I know now why it still poses me a problem : this
> pti_enabled flag alone is not sufficient to enable PTI, it's just part
> of the condition, as another part comes from the X86_FEATURE_PTI flag.
> However, pti_disabled is sufficient to disable PTI so actually its
> effect matches its name (note BTW that I called it "pti_disable" as a
> verb indicating an action -- "I want to disable pti", and not as a past
> form "pti is disabled").
If it's a verb then please name it in the proper order, i.e. 'disable_pti'.
I'm fine with that approach.
Thanks,
Ingo
