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 10:28:38 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: cpu_no_speculation omissions?

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.

Rich, did you have a specific set of family/model combinations that you
thought were missed?