[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807162120181.1693@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 21:20:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: cpu_no_speculation omissions?
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 10:28 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 07/16/2018 09:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > At least the Centerton (late-generation Bonnell uarch) Atom
> > > > family is
> > > > omitted from the cpu_no_speculation table added by commit
> > > > fec9434a12f3
> > > > to arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c. Is this intentional? Would a
> > > > patch
> > > > adding it and possibly other omissions be welcome?
> > >
> > > Probably. Dave?
> >
> > IIRC, Alan Cox was compiling a list on what is affected vs. not. He
> > would know way better than I.
>
> The pre Silvermont atom cores are in order. When I did the original
> list I didn't bother with all the 32bit cores as we didn't have any
> 32bit mitigations then.
At least we should give the users that warm and fuzzy feeling that they are
not affected.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists