[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810181713330.3566@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:17:29 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 12/13] x86/speculation: Protect non-dumpable processes
against Spectre v2 attack
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, Tim Chen wrote:
> +void arch_set_dumpable(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned int value)
> +{
> + bool update;
> +
> + if (!static_branch_unlikely(&spectre_v2_app_lite))
> + return;
> + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_STIBP))
> + return;
> + if (spectre_v2_app2app_enabled == SPECTRE_V2_APP2APP_NONE)
> + return;
Can spectre_v2_app_lite be enabled when the cpu does not support STIBP or
spectre_v2_app2app_enabled is not set to SPECTRE_V2_APP2APP_CMD_LITE?
No it cannot. So checking the static key is sufficient.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists