Re: [PATCH v4 01/10] x86/bugs: Only log missing retpoline when it's actually the missing mitigation
Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.linux-coco,org.kernel.vger.kvm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20260805224907.GDanO942iYDbai1kFx@fat_crate.local> |
On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 09:51:11AM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> So it's saying there are no additional conditions than
> !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MITIGATION_RETPOLINE), when there should be
> (which this patch adds).
Then say that pls.
> This patch corrects code that already cares about RETPOLINE=n kernels, but
> it's also useful if you know all the target systems for a RETPOLINE=n config have
> alternatives to RETPOLINE, such as {,e,Auto}IBRS. This will become more and more
> true as time goes by.
Why would more and more configs become relevant which disable
CONFIG_MITIGATION_RETPOLINE?
What is the compelling use case which warrants to have this in the upstream
kernel?
Give me a concrete example pls.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette