Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:56:36 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 06/17] x86/cpu: Add SRSO untrain to retbleed= |
| |
On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 02:10:34PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 01:24:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > That very experience wants me to avoid doing it again :-/ But you all > > really want to keep the parameter, can we at least rename it something > > you can remember how to type, like 'srso=' instead of this horrific > > 'spec_rstack_overflow=' thing? > > I'm all for short'n'sweet but last time I did that, Linus said we should > have option names which aren't abbreviations which don't mean anything.
So:
1) do you guys really want to keep this extra argument?
2) if so, can we *PLEASE* rename it, because the current naming *SUCKS*.
I really don't see the need for an extra feature, we can trivially fold the whole thing into retbleed, that's already 2 issues, might as well make it 3 :-)
If we're going to rename, how about we simply call it 'inception' then we haz both 'retbleed=' and 'inception=' and we're consistent here. Then I'll make a compromise and do:
's/zen_\(untrain_ret\|return_thunk\)/btc_\1/g'
so that the actual mitigations have the official amd name on them -- however much I disagree with calling this branch-type-confusion.
| |