[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180213161055.GD12578@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:10:55 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Nick Lowe <nick.lowe@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, ashok.raj@...el.com,
karahmed@...zon.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
peterz@...radead.org, 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
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 05:02:59PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> No. The table is basically excluding families <=5 and a few individual
> ones. Anything newer than that should tell via ARCH_CAP_RDCL_NO and not
> need any entry.
It looks to me like Nick wants 4.9 to test X86_BUG_CPU_MELTDOWN in
kaiser_check_boottime_disable() not X86_VENDOR_AMD. I.e., the auto
disable should pay attention to the CPUs in the table like upstream.
4.9 got the kaiser backports which explains the difference.
IMHO, of course.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists