On 10/01/2018 15:06, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On 1/10/2018 5:20 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> * a simple specification that does "IBRS=1 blocks indirect branch >> prediction altogether" would actually satisfy the specification just as >> well, and it would be nice to know if that's what the processor actually >> does. > > it doesn't exactly, not for all. > > so you really do need to write ibrs again.
Okay, so "always set IBRS=1" does *not* protect against variant 2. Thanks, Paolo
