[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1515164061.3305.17.camel@debian.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 15:54:21 +0100
From: Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...ian.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@...ian.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] IBRS patch series
On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 15:26 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Those from November seem way too early to include IBRS/IBPB. Maybe the
> two from December 3rd, but I wouldn't be 100% sure.
So, for my CPU with updated microcode:
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 61
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-5200U CPU @ 2.20GHz
stepping : 4
microcode : 0x28
cpuid returns:
0x00000007 0x00: eax=0x00000000 ebx=0x021c27ab ecx=0x00000000
edx=0x0c000000
So bit 26/27 are set, which as I understand means IBRS is supported (but I
would appreciate any pointer to relevant documentation on this).
>
> So it would be even nicer to know how those microcode updates were tested.
At least I didn't test IBRS/IBPB here. I could do it provided I'm pointed to a
tree with all the things to test.
>
> (And by the way, the LFENCE change is for variant 1 aka CVE-2017-5753).
Ok, good to know. Is the kernel support part for LFENCE in the same thread (I
have to admit I'm a bit lost).
Regards,
--
Yves-Alexis
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists