[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180130111848.zjv2dngfzcz35lyt@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:18:48 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: arjan@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de, karahmed@...zon.de,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, peterz@...radead.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Fix up "virtual" IBRS/IBPB/STIBP feature bits
on Intel
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:03:50AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I pondered that, but I didn't like it. I didn't want to always *force*
> those features on, for all CPUs, just because they happened to be
> discovered at boot time on the first CPU (which *did* have its
> microcode updated by the crappy BIOS, while the others didn't).
>
> I strongly suspect that's purely an academic concern, and we mostly
> check boot_cpu_has() and never even *notice* if secondary CPUs don't
> match. I just didn't want to make that *worse*. It tickled my OCD.
Well, you need to do it because those bits are AMD-specific and they are
not set in the Intel CPUID leaf and identify_cpu() towards the end takes
care of "ironing" all those bits out which are not part of the common
feature set and which get_cpu_cap() has *not* read out from CPUID.
It is one of those I-told-you-so moments when I suggested to make the
visible feature bits the artificial ones and have the *actual* hardware
ones set those.
:-)
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists