linux-kernel - Re: cpu_no_speculation omissions?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 16 Jul 2018 21:20:58 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: cpu_no_speculation omissions?

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 10:28 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 07/16/2018 09:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > At least the Centerton (late-generation Bonnell uarch) Atom
> > > > family is
> > > > omitted from the cpu_no_speculation table added by commit
> > > > fec9434a12f3
> > > > to arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c. Is this intentional? Would a
> > > > patch
> > > > adding it and possibly other omissions be welcome?
> > > 
> > > Probably. Dave?
> > 
> > IIRC, Alan Cox was compiling a list on what is affected vs. not.  He
> > would know way better than I.
> 
> The pre Silvermont atom cores are in order. When I did the original
> list I didn't bother with all the 32bit cores as we didn't have any
> 32bit mitigations then.

At least we should give the users that warm and fuzzy feeling that they are
not affected.

Thanks,

	tglx