[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1bcf0b54-6ddf-b343-87c5-f7fd7538759c@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 15:54:58 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
tony.luck@...el.com, antonio.gomez.iglesias@...ux.intel.com,
Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH] x86/bugs: Add "unknown" reporting for MMIO
Stale Data
On 7/29/22 14:46, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> Let me see if there is a way to distinguish between 4. and 5. below:
>
> CPU category X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Known affected (in cpu list) 1 0
> 2. CPUs with HW immunity (MMIO_NO=1) 0 0
> 3. Other vendors 0 0
> 4. Older Intel CPUs 0 1
> 5. Not affected current CPUs (but MMIO_NO=0) 0 ?
This seems like something we would need to go back to our colleagues to
figure out. Basically, at the time of publishing the
X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA papers, what was considered "older"?
In other words, we need the folks at Intel that did this good work to
_show_ their work (at least part of it).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists