On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Tim Chen wrote:
> On 11/19/2018 12:55 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So before that change IBPB was usable without STIBP, now not longer. What's
> >> the rationale?
> >>
> >> This patch changes a gazillion things at once and is completely
> >> unreviewable.
> >
> > The patchset actually ties together IBPB and STIBP pretty closely, which
> > is IMO a good thing; there is no good reason why anone would want just one
> > of those (or each in a different mode), at least before this magical
> > coscheduling exists.
> >
> > But I guess this fact should be documented somewhere.
> >
>
> Yes, it wouldn't make sense for having just one of those if a task
> is worried about attack from user space.
>
> I'll document it.
What? IBPB makes tons of sense even without STIBP.
Thanks,
tglx
