[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190813212115.GO16770@zn.tnic>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 23:21:15 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Kernel User <linux-kernel@...eup.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/ doesn't show all known
CPU vulnerabilities
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:28:29PM +0300, Kernel User wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 'ls /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/' doesn't show all known
> CPU vulnerabilities and their variants. Only some of them:
>
> l1tf mds meltdown spec_store_bypass spectre_v1 spectre_v2
>
> Wikipedia shows more variants:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltdown_(security_vulnerability)#Speculative_execution_security_vulnerabilities
>
> It would be good to have a full list with statuses. Then one won't need to use external (potentially non-safe) tools like https://github.com/speed47/spectre-meltdown-checker to find out the vulnerabilities of a system.
>
You have to consider that some of those are addressed by a single
mitigation like MDS; the mitigation for others like lazy FPU restore
is not even present in /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/. Also,
depending on the CPU, some are not even affected.
So maintaining this in the kernel is unnecessary to say the least.
We could use a writeup somewhere which maps each vulnerability name -
and they're a gazillion by now - to the respective mitigation and what
is required but I'm not aware of such a writeup.
Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/ could be a good start and
Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/mds.rst could be a good example how
one should document the vulnerabilities and their mitigation. But that
would need to be exhaustive.
IMHO of course.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists