* David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 20:43 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > And should these say 'Spectre v2' not just 'Spectre'? > > > > Yeah, you are probably right, but I didn't want to make the messages too > > specific > > - do we really know that this is the end of Spectre-style speculation holes? > > Well... if a new problem is also remedied by use if IBRS/IBPB and > retpoline, I think we can happily call it a subclass of "Spectre v2". > > And if it *isn't* addressed by those same things, then it's clearly > something different. Either way, these messages should be 'v2', no?
Ok, fair enough - I've changed it to v2 as you suggest: - pr_info("Filling RSB on context switch\n"); + pr_info("Spectre v2 mitigation: Filling RSB on context switch\n"); - pr_info("Enabling Indirect Branch Prediction Barrier\n"); + pr_info("Spectre v2 mitigation: Enabling Indirect Branch Prediction Barrier\n"); > On the whole though, there are plenty of better things to be worrying > about :) Sure - nevertheless I fixed these while they were still hot ;-) Thanks, Ingo