On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:30:04AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > But it does describe its purpose, especially in relation to the
> > 'spectre_v2=' option.
>
> Sure, but the thing I'm proposing
>
> spectre_v2_task_isol=
>
> describes it more precisely, IMHO. :)
>
> I.e., "enable/disable spectre v2 task isolation".
>
> > Previously 'spectre_v2=' might have been more appropriately named
> > 'spectre_v2_kernel=' because it only protected the kernel from Spectre
> > v2 attacks. Now with these new patches, 'spectre_v2=on' will protect
> > the entire system.
>
> Hmmm, crazy idea: can we extend the options of spectre_v2= nstead?
>
> spectre_v2=user_isolation,...
> spectre_v2=kernel,...
> spectre_v2=task_isolation,...
>
> and so on?
>
> This way we can do a couple of option switches in one go.
That's results in a huge parser state space and changes the existing
interface. We stay with the separate option.
Thanks,
tglx
