Re: [PATCH] x86/bugs: Don't warn when overwriting retbleed_return_thunk with srso_return_thunk

On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 04:30:22PM -0700, Pawan Gupta wrote:

This was discussed during the mitigation, and pr_warn() was chosen because it was not obvious that srso mitigation also mitigates retbleed. (On a retrospect, there should have been a comment about it).

Why is that important?

We have multiple cases where a mitigation strategy addresses multiple attacks.

The conclusion was to make the srso and retbleed relationship clear and then take care of the pr_warn().

So let's ask ourselves: who is really going to see what single-line warning?

What are we *actually* trying to prevent here?

How about a big fat splat at least if we're really trying to prevent something nasty which causes a panic on warn...?

Thx.