[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e9df17e7-86ee-2f7a-b8e2-d78ac0358fc3@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:59:29 -0500
From: Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
Jayachandran C <jnair@...iumnetworks.com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/17] arm64: Add SMCCC v1.1 support and CVE-2017-5715
(Spectre variant 2) mitigation
Hi Marc, all,
On 02/06/2018 12:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> ARM has recently published a SMC Calling Convention (SMCCC)
> specification update[1] that provides an optimised calling convention
> and optional, discoverable support for mitigating CVE-2017-5715. ARM
> Trusted Firmware (ATF) has already gained such an implementation[2].
I'm probably just missing something, but does this end up reported
somewhere conveniently user visible? In particular, if the new SMC is
*not* provided, does the user end up easily seeing this?
Jon.
--
Computer Architect | Sent from my Fedora powered laptop
Powered by blists - more mailing lists