Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:56:24 +0000 From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: "Konstantin Belousov" <kib@FreeBSD.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r328625 - in head/sys: amd64/amd64 amd64/ia32 amd64/include dev/cpuctl i386/i386 x86/include x86/x86 Message-ID: <FF98ADF0-829E-419B-89C3-9717F62CD4A7@lists.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <201801311436.w0VEaRrZ030839@repo.freebsd.org> References: <201801311436.w0VEaRrZ030839@repo.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 31 Jan 2018, at 14:36, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > Author: kib > Date: Wed Jan 31 14:36:27 2018 > New Revision: 328625 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/328625 > > Log: > IBRS support, AKA Spectre hardware mitigation. > For existing processors, you need a microcode update which adds IBRS > CPU features, and to manually enable it by setting the > tunable/sysctl > hw.ibrs_disable to 0. Current status can be checked in sysctl > hw.ibrs_active. The mitigation might be inactive if the CPU feature Can you change the tunable/sysctl to hw.ibrs_enable[d] (and toggle the default setting along). I find it highly confusing to have two different sysctls “disable” and “active” and a lot of people (and cultures) have trouble with the double negative. Also the “enable[d]” variant seems to be pre-dominant in the kernel. Also can we spell IBRS in the sysctl description as “Indirect Branch Restricted Speculation (IBRS)”? Thanks /bz
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FF98ADF0-829E-419B-89C3-9717F62CD4A7>