On 12/12/2018 08:32 AM, Boris Petkov wrote: > On December 12, 2018 3:04:35 PM GMT+01:00, "Lendacky, Thomas" > <thomas.lenda...@amd.com> wrote: >> Not sure I completely follow. Are you saying to do what I did in my >> first patch or something different from that yet? > > I'm saying that STIBP_ALWAYS_ON should be implemented the same way like > IBRS_ENHANCED is and there's no need for a static bool. AFAICT. > > Or am I missing something?
Ok, I think you're saying to do what my first patch did or something very close to that. Which is to just set always-on mode if STIBP protection is requested and the STIBP_ALWAYS_ON CPUID bit is set (even if the equivalent "=on" is supplied on the command line?). That would mean having the new mode and new string(s). If that's not what you're saying, then maybe I just need more coffee this morning :) Thanks, Tom >
