Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Clean up various Spectre related details

[David Woodhouse]

On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 20:43 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > And should these say 'Spectre v2' not just 'Spectre'?
> 
> Yeah, you are probably right, but I didn't want to make the messages too specificÂ
> - do we really know that this is the end of Spectre-style speculation holes?

Well... if a new problem is also remedied by use if IBRS/IBPB and
retpoline, I think we can happily call it a subclass of "Spectre v2".

And if it *isn't* addressed by those same things, then it's clearly
something different. Either way, these messages should be 'v2', no?

On the whole though, there are plenty of better things to be worrying
about :)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature