linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: cpufeature: Add "or" to mitigations for multiple errata

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200512144445.GE3021@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Tue, 12 May 2020 15:44:45 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: cpufeature: Add "or" to mitigations for multiple
 errata

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:38:19PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:12 PM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:42:38PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > Several actions are not mitigations for a single erratum, but for
> > > multiple errata.  However, printing a line like
> > >
> > >     CPU features: detected: ARM errata 1165522, 1319367, 1530923
> > >
> > > may give the false impression that all three listed errata have been
> > > detected.  This can confuse the user, who may think his Cortex-A57 is
> > > suddenly affected by Cortex-A76 and Cortex-A55 errata.
> > >
> > > Add "or" to all descriptions for mitigations for multiple errata, to
> > > make it clear that only one or more of the errata printed are
> > > applicable, and not necessarily all of them.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 6 +++---
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > This seems to conflict with the other patch you sent to reorder the entries.
> 
> My reordering applied to the Kconfig file.

Sorry, you're right. Your patch didn't apply on top of that, so I wrongly
assumed that it was the culprit.

> > Please can you send another version, based on the arm64 for-next/kconfig
> > branch?
> 
> Then it will conflict with commit 02ab1f5018c3ad0b ("arm64: Unify
> WORKAROUND_SPECULATIVE_AT_{NVHE,VHE}") from for-next/kvm/errata?

Ah, that's ok. I recreate for-next/core so I have flexibility in dropping
branches if they cause problems. Please can you send a version against
for-next/kconfig, and I'll handle the conflict now that you've pointed it
out/

Cheers,

Will