[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180219100817.GO25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:08:17 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, hpa@...or.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/pti] x86/speculation: Use IBRS if available before
calling into firmware
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 09:29:12AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 10:20 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > I did not update or otherwise change packages while I was bisecting; the
> > machine is:
> >
> > vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> > cpu family : 6
> > model : 62
> > model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 v2 @ 2.80GHz
> > stepping : 4
> > microcode : 0x428
>
> That's IVX with a microcode that doesn't *have* IBRS/IBPB. I don't
> think there's a publicly available microcode that does; I assume you
> didn't have one and build it into your kernel for early loading, and
> thus you really weren't even using IBRS here? The code never even gets
> patched in?
I wasn't using IRBS afaik. I was bisceting tip/master before the
IBRS/firmware patches (not sure they're in now or not).
No fancy ucode setup, I think I have ucode image in the initrd, but that
would be same for all kernels.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists