linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Return ENXIO instead of EPERM when speculation control is unimplemented

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: <87o8uy2boh.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jan 2020 20:02:54 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Anthony Steinhauser <asteinhauser@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
        Anthony Steinhauser <asteinhauser@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Return ENXIO instead of EPERM when speculation control is unimplemented

Anthony,

Anthony Steinhauser <asteinhauser@...gle.com> writes:
>  		return "";
>  
>  	switch (spectre_v2_user) {
> -	case SPECTRE_V2_USER_NONE:
> +	case SPECTRE_V2_USER_UNAVAILABLE:
> +		return ", STIBP: unavailable";

Shouldn't this for correctness differentiate between the case where the
STIBP mitigation feature is not available and the case where STIBP is
not used because SMT is not possible?

Thanks,

        tglx