linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 3 Mar 2018 22:06:53 +0100
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, r.marek@...embler.cz,
        ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com, rkrcmar@...hat.com,
        Janakarajan.Natarajan@....com, bp@...e.de, x86@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

On Tue 2018-01-09 00:44:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> > On Mon 2018-01-08 21:27:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > First, what is going on with X86_BUG_AMD_E400 and X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E
> > > > ? They seem to refer to the same bug, perhaps comment should mention
> > > > that? (Do we need two flags for one bug?)
> > > > 
> > > > Next, maybe X86_BUG_CPU_INSECURE is a bit too generic? This seems to
> > > > address "Meltdown" problem, but not "Spectre". Should it be limited to
> > > > PPro and newer Intel CPUs?
> > > > 
> > > > Should another erratum be added for "Spectre"? This is present even on
> > > > AMD CPUs, but should not be present in 486, maybe Pentium, and some
> > > > Atom chips?
> > > > 
> > > > Plus... is this reasonable interface?
> > > > 
> > > > bugs		: cpu_insecure
> > > 
> > > We've renamed it to meltdown already and added spectre_v1/v2 bits for the
> > > rest of the mess.
> > 
> > Could you explain (best with code comment) what is going on with
> > X86_BUG_AMD_E400 and X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E ? They seem to refer to the
> > same bug.
> 
> Sorry, that;s really not the time for this.

Ok, is there better time now? The code is a bit confusing...
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)