linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801082125530.2253@nanos>
Date:   Mon, 8 Jan 2018 21:27:25 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, r.marek@...embler.cz,
        ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com, rkrcmar@...hat.com,
        Janakarajan.Natarajan@....com, bp@...e.de, x86@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote:

> 
> First, what is going on with X86_BUG_AMD_E400 and X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E
> ? They seem to refer to the same bug, perhaps comment should mention
> that? (Do we need two flags for one bug?)
> 
> Next, maybe X86_BUG_CPU_INSECURE is a bit too generic? This seems to
> address "Meltdown" problem, but not "Spectre". Should it be limited to
> PPro and newer Intel CPUs?
> 
> Should another erratum be added for "Spectre"? This is present even on
> AMD CPUs, but should not be present in 486, maybe Pentium, and some
> Atom chips?
> 
> Plus... is this reasonable interface?
> 
> bugs		: cpu_insecure

We've renamed it to meltdown already and added spectre_v1/v2 bits for the
rest of the mess.