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: <CAN_oZf2Umdqk6Z649bam7wLk50=zrOemuk00PFn0Hhg6KTWhXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 03:19:09 -0800
From:   Anthony Steinhauser <asteinhauser@...gle.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Return ENXIO instead of EPERM when speculation control is unimplemented

You're right, Thomas,
thanks for pointing that out. Please, see attached a corrected version.

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:02 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> 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

View attachment "0001-Return-ENXIO-instead-of-EPERM-when-speculation-contr.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (7995 bytes)