[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADSoG1sv4-YmRh8AwD7A93_eDLn4ZTwD0Y7C9jyRyh6nOvwqjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:27:47 +0000
From: Nick Lowe <nick.lowe@...il.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, ak@...ux.intel.com,
ashok.raj@...el.com, karahmed@...zon.de,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 43/92] x86/pti: Do not enable PTI on CPUs which are
not vulnerable to Meltdown
Hi Arjan and Greg,
Sorry if I am not being clear enough.
My point is that there is a check for X86_VENDOR_AMD now in two places.
It is still hardcoded for the auto boot option which I think should
not be there. The patch on that basis looked incomplete to me.
Put another way, there is no effect to the auto option where the
contents of cpu_no_meltdown[] are changed and
cpu_vulnerable_to_meltdown returns differently.
The auto option does not make use of a determination of the
X86_BUG_CPU_MELTDOWN state.
This seems wrong to me. It does not seem correct to me for the auto
option to have this duplication with a check for just X86_VENDOR_AMD.
Regards,
Nick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists