On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 04:47:38PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Because I'm mixing paravirt and cpufeatures a bit oddly.
>
> That's fine. All X86_BUG_* are synthetic and exactly for stuff like
> that.
>
> --
>
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 04:47:38PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Because I'm mixing paravirt and cpufeatures a bit oddly.
That's fine. All X86_BUG_* are synthetic and exactly for stuff like
that.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
On Mar 1, 2016 2:46 PM, "Borislav Petkov" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 03:50:18PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Borislav, if you're okay with this (ab)use of the cpufeatures stuff
>
> Because of X86_BUG_ESPFIX? Why abuse?
Because I'm mixing paravirt and cpufeatures a
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 03:50:18PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Borislav, if you're okay with this (ab)use of the cpufeatures stuff
Because of X86_BUG_ESPFIX? Why abuse?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
[v2 because I screwed up sending it really badly and it's not worth
trying to disentangle the mess]
Hi Luis-
As promised, here are these patches.
Borislav, if you're okay with this (ab)use of the cpufeatures stuff
and if they survive review, I'd be okay with them joining Luis'
series or going