* 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
- pr_info("Enabling Indirect Branch Prediction Barrier\n");
+ pr_info("Spectre v2 mitigation: Enabling Indirect Branch
> On the whole though, there are plenty of better things to be worrying
> about :)
Sure - nevertheless I fixed these while they were still hot ;-)