[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <01c224eb-9bec-6b16-7ecf-14837cc107b6@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:10:33 +0800
From: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
CC: <catalin.marinas@....com>, <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
<marc.zyngier@....com>, <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
<christoffer.dall@...aro.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<labbott@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] arm64: Add skeleton to harden the branch
predictor against aliasing attacks
Hi Will,
On 2018/1/5 21:12, Will Deacon wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/context.c b/arch/arm64/mm/context.c
> index 5f7097d0cd12..d99b36555a16 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/context.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/context.c
> @@ -246,6 +246,8 @@ asmlinkage void post_ttbr_update_workaround(void)
> "ic iallu; dsb nsh; isb",
> ARM64_WORKAROUND_CAVIUM_27456,
> CONFIG_CAVIUM_ERRATUM_27456));
> +
> + arm64_apply_bp_hardening();
> }
post_ttbr_update_workaround was used for fix Cavium erratum 2745? so does that
means, if we do not have this erratum, we do not need arm64_apply_bp_hardening()?
when mm_swtich and kernel_exit?
>From the code logical, it seems not only related to erratum 2745 anymore?
should it be renamed?
Thanks
Yisheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists