From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751483AbeEBLlc convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2018 07:41:32 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35248 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750954AbeEBLlb (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2018 07:41:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 13:41:28 +0200 From: Michal =?UTF-8?B?U3VjaMOhbmVr?= To: Michael Ellerman Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, npiggin@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] powerpc/64s: Enable barrier_nospec based on firmware settings Message-ID: <20180502134128.4a31b0fc@kitsune.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <87vac7r5px.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> References: <20180424041559.32410-1-mpe@ellerman.id.au> <20180424041559.32410-4-mpe@ellerman.id.au> <20180426180258.04e6bee6@kitsune.suse.cz> <87vac7r5px.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Organization: SUSE Linux X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 01 May 2018 21:11:06 +1000 Michael Ellerman wrote: > Michal Suchánek writes: > > Hello, > > > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:15:57 +1000 > > Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > >> From: Michal Suchanek > >> > >> Check what firmware told us and enable/disable the barrier_nospec > >> as appropriate. > >> > >> We err on the side of enabling the barrier, as it's no-op on older > >> systems, see the comment for more detail. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman > ... > > > > I am missing the option for the barrier to be disabled by a kernel > > commandline argument here. > > > > It does make sense to add a kernel parameter that is checked on > > boot to be compatible with other platforms that implement one. > > No other platforms have an option to disable variant 1 mitigations, so > there isn't an existing parameter we can use. Right, I was looking at an older implementation which turned off both v1 and v2 with same parameter. In current kernel the v1 mitigation is not turned off at all. > > Which is not to say we can't add one, but I wasn't sure if it was > really worth it. The current thinking is that most performance relevant cases are covered with array_nospec which has little overhead. The less code we have for this the better ;-) Thanks Michal