linux-kernel - Re: cpu_no_speculation omissions?

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1807261529020.1881@gjva.wvxbf.pm>
Date:   Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:29:53 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To:     Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        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>, jroedel@...e.de
Subject: Re: cpu_no_speculation omissions?

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Alan Cox 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.

Now that 32bit PTI is in tip, I believe refresh of that list would be 
justified. CCing Joerg.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs